Talk:Marital rape/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Marital rape. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Georgia (country) on the map

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Why is Georgia shown in black on the map? It should be red, it is illegal; it's listed on the list of countries which have criminalized, and is sourced.2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:1BCD (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It's referenced here: [1], on pages 4 and 5. UNIFEM 2003, which only presents a list in table form refers to "non-specific legislation" criminalizing marital rape in Georgia. In general, I've avoided using this kind of list as a source unless there was no contradictory information. However, in the case of Georgia, this sequence happened: 1) I added it to the Not criminalized list, using that citation. 2) Someone removed it. 3) I added a set of non-contradicted countries cited in UNIFEM 2003 to the criminalized list.

I suspect we can find clarity on the matter, and would defer to your judgment about greying the country on the map or not until then.--Carwil (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Georgia should be grey on the map, at least for now, because there is very much contradictory information.

For instance [2] states that marital rape is illegal: pg 122 - questions 5.1 and 5.2. 2A02:2F0A:504F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:A3E3 (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Done Georgia is now greyed on the map. Let's see if we can pull together sources on Georgia though.--Carwil (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

African customary law

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What is meant by "African customary law"? You realize Africa is a vast continent and the customs of different groups differed widely? The source cited is about a single country, Malawi.--190.80.116.134 (talk) 06:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Husband?

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This article is feminist!!! Women also can rape men so saying "...is illegal but widely tolerated and accepted as a husband's prerogative." is wrong! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.14.215 (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure if I got this right, but "Traditional views on marriage which dictate that a woman must be (sexually) submissive to her husband continue to be common in many parts of the world." should be cited explicitly. To me, as a person who is forming a world view, it sounds as a commentary on culture as opposed to established by study. I would love to have a clarification on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikisarma (talk • contribs) 19:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Questions

Latest comment: 10 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

In the light of the above section I would like to ask:

Does anybody object if I remove the list of countries (since most of them are unsourced or poorly sourced)?

Does anybody object if I remove the map? (same reasons as above + laws are changing quickly)?

Note: I have also corrected Jamaica with a linked to the The Sexual Offences Act, 2009. Again, please be careful with sources when dealing with legal issues.2A02:2F01:1059:F003:0:0:BC19:A017 (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I see I got no responses so I've removed the countries from the list. I added several more countries in the section on 20th/21st century criminalization and will add more with proper sources. If any problems please discuss here on talk.2A02:2F01:1059:F002:0:0:BC19:A2B7 (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear. I object to both wholesale removals.

Please correct things, instead of deleting them altogether. All of the sourcing issues are discussed above on Talk, and there's even an open work page for dealing with cleaning up the sourcing: Talk:Marital_rape/Country_lists. I'm willing to do the svg code updating periodically (more like every five weeks than every five days) to make the map correspond.

As best I can tell the "not criminalized" list was properly sourced on the main page, although you may not like every cited conclusion. As with everything else on wikipedia, find a competing source that is more reliable or more current in the event of disputes and errors.--Carwil (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

First of all, I have to ask, why does the article need both a map and a list of countries? I think only one of these options is sufficient (personally I think neither is needed since countries can be discussed in the 20th/21st century section; but if map or list must stay, then I think choosing only one option is better, since they are difficult to maintain). Regarding sources, I am not the only one to complain about them, since in many countries the situation is very difficult to determine and sources are contradicting each other. There is no need to list all the countries of the world here, and only countries that are extremely clear and extremely well sourced should be discussed here.188.25.26.177 (talk) 12:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

for instance, as said in the above section:

Honduras should not be black on map

Mauritania should not be red on map188.25.26.177 (talk) 12:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

We should have a table and a map, because Wikipedia is a reference work. Tables and maps are two very simple ways to access detailed, geographically distributed information, and therefore appropriate for a reference work like Wikipedia. (Saying this with a smile:) If you think we shouldn't do something because it's "very difficult," perhaps an online encyclopedia of human knowledge is not the project you're looking for.--Carwil (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Honduras: Criminalization confirmed and sourced in the article now.

Mauritania: sources conflict. Will be greyed on the map.--Carwil (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I object the wholesale removal of either things. As long as references are provided for most of them, it can be used as a "reference". Otherwise, it can be re-sourced. If there is too much contradictory information, then only those certain countries should go away. The entire list should not! TheReportingReporter (talk) 00:13, 06 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that you are confusing two different issues:

countries where marital rape is not explicitly criminalized

and

countries where marital rape is not covered by the 'ordinary' rape laws.

These are two different issues; and the article should not imply they are the same.

See here: [3]

As of 2011, at least 52 countries had explicitly made marital rape a criminal offense,[2] and according to a 2006 report from the UN Secretary-General, at least 104 countries criminalize marital rape—if not under explicit marital rape statutes, then under general rape laws.

The section is called Countries where spousal rape is not a criminal offence but uses a source which lists countries which do not explicitly criminalize. Not the same thing (because in some of them it may still be covered under the general rape law). I removed countries cited only to that source.2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:459D (talk) 23:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Well, what I meant was that the only countries which should be there are the ones which directly state that is criminalized or not criminalized. TheReportingReporter (talk) 01:04, 06 October 2014 (UTC)

Countries where spousal rape is a criminal offence/not criminalized

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I removed these sections for reasons that were already discussed above. Sources are poor, outdated and unclear. Also please do not confuse countries where marital rape is not explicitly criminalized/not specifically addressed, with countries where it is legal. In many of these countries it may still be covered by the 'normal' rape law (if it is not specifically excluded by the text of the law). Also, many of the countries which do not explicitly criminalize are countries that used to have a statutory exemption in the rape law that was specifically removed by the legislature for the purpose of including marital rape under the ordinary rape law.

According to existing sources:

The 2006 UN Secretary-General's In-depth study on all forms of violence against women found:[4] - page 113:

"Marital rape may be prosecuted in at least 104 States. Of these, 32 have made marital rape a specific criminal offence, while the remaining 74 do not exempt marital rape from general rape provisions. Marital rape is not a prosecutable offence in at least 53 States. Four States criminalize marital rape only when the spouses are judicially separated. Four States are considering legislation that would allow marital rape to be prosecuted."

In 2011, the UN Women report Progress of the World’s Women:In Pursuit of Justice found (UN Women Justice Report) found:[5] - page 17

"By April 2011, at least 52 States had explicitly outlawed marital rape in their criminal code".

Note that this report referred to countries which explicitly criminalize marital rape (does not necessarily mean that it is legal in those which don't).

Please do not revert my change until discussing it here. Also see the sections above where this has been discussed.2A02:2F0A:507F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AF6A (talk) 06:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Another source (for Europe):

Analytical study of the results of the Fourth Round of Monitoring the Implementation of Recommendation Rec(2002)5 on the Protection of Women against Violence in Council of Europe member states (results for 2013): [6]

results from 46 member states of the Council of Europe (Russia did not participate). At page 61, all the 46 contries answered "Yes" at the question on the criminalization of rape within marriage on the same basis as rape outside marriage (in the table -the sixth question)

I copied this from the "Questions" section: "I object the wholesale removal of either things. As long as references are provided for most of them, it can be used as a "reference". Otherwise, it can be re-sourced. If there is too much contradictory information, then only those certain countries should go away. The entire list should not! Some countries can be more authenticated than others! TheReportingReporter (talk) 00:13, 06 October 2014 (UTC)".

And where is the "Countries where spousal rape is a criminal offence" section? I can't seem to find the editing text of it! Well, if I find it, I will put the following statement underneath "Some of the sources are not highly authentic and therefore should not always be taken into consideration. Please view the talk page for more information." Don't you agree that this is better than removing the entire list? TheReportingReporter (talk 00:50, 06 October 2014 (UTC)

I responded in the Questions section. However I will seek a third opinion through RfC because I don't want an edit war.2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:459D (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

"As long as references are provided for most of them, it can be used as a "reference"" - No it cannot. It must be a reliable source - WP:RS. The media, random books, or various NGOs are not usually reliable with regard to legal issues. The standards are very high when it comes to sources for legal and medical articles.2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:459D (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, it was not my intention to start an edit war either. I mentioned what I meant by that statement under the "Questions" category. Peace. TheReportingReporter (talk) 01:07, 06 October 2014 (UTC)

RFC - sections Countries where spousal rape is a criminal offence and Countries where spousal rape is not a criminal offence; the map

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

There is a dispute regarding the accuracy of these sections and of the map. An editor with very good knowledge of legal issues (familiar with both common law and civil law legal systems) would be an ideal help. The questions are:

Should the sections stay?
Should the map stay?
What sources are appropriate (ie. sufficiently reliable)? What to do about contradictory sources?

The relevant problems are discussed on this talk page, in particular in the section Countries where spousal rape is a criminal offence/not criminalized above, but also in other sections such as Questions; Factual accuracy on countries that criminalize/don't criminalize, of map; and using reliable sources ; or I am again raising SERIOUS concerns about the accuracy of this article in regard to country laws and sources and other sections. Also see this discussion also User_talk:TheReportingReporter#Marital_rape.2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:459D (talk) 00:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

FYI, the map includes all the sources in the SVG code. The most common source used seems to be the U.S. State Department. If the map isn't accurate, it should be updated, not discarded. Are there still any specific problems with the map that have not been fixed? Kaldari (talk) 08:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Why shouldn't the section stay, why should the map stay, and have you heard of the reliable sources noticeboard? If the section is broken fix it. If the map is broken fix it.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You might want to ask Wehwalt as he's an attorney and would understand the legal bit. He's also an admin so would understand policy, etc. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to pass on this, I'm short on time at this particular moment. Sorry.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Japan again

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have removed all mentions of Japan from this article (source for new addition was in Japanese language and is not appropriate, especially since other sources seem to conflict; map also shows Japan in red). Please do not add anything to the article about this country until all problems are clarified here on talk page.2A02:2F0A:500F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:A124 (talk) 18:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Since there are conflicting sources, shouldn't Japan be totally be blanked from the maps? I don't know, maybe it is probably illegal, but not implemented. TheReportingReporter (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Marital rape not illegal in India

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

An exclusion for marital rape exists in the law against rape in the Indian Penal Code, which is also pointed out recently by a judge acquitting a man of raping his wife (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/10824964/Rape-in-marriage-not-a-crime-Indian-court-rules.html). Also after the Delhi gang-rape incident it was advised by the law committee making anti-rape law stricter that this exclusion should be done away with however this proposal was rejected. Another thing is that marital rape is not described as non-criminal domestic abuse under any Indian law. Isolated judgments cannot dictate the status, only official status of the act can which under the IPC is excluded as a criminal offense on the law against rape. So I think the status of marital rape in India should be moved to not illegal in the article. KahnJohn27 (talk) 07:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The map and list is about simplicity. As mentioned in the article you have given, non-consensual sex in India is not deemed as 'rape' or criminalized through any legal means and therefore it should indeed be black on map. I think someone may have mistook India for Indonesia from section 10 above. Even then, why isn't Indonesia in black either? Of the two sources provided for it, one seems to be in Japanese (and irrelevant) whilst the other one is dead. Since the country presumably runs with aspects of the Sharia law, it will probably be black on map. TheReportingReporter (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the current classification for India is accurate. See [7] and [8], which says that "any conduct of a sexual nature that abuses, humiliates, degrades, or violates the dignity of a woman" is considered domestic violence. Domestic violence is not considered a criminal offense in India, but it does allow the wife to apply for a protection order. As to whether we should simplify the map, I would support such a change as it would be less confusing, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 06:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Somalia

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Somalia is mentioned in the list, but it is not black in map. I don't know how to edit maps. Can someone please sort this out? Thank you. TheReportingReporter (talk) 22:46,07 October 2014 (BST) .

Done. Kaldari (talk) 06:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It is illegal there. Article 15 of the Provisional Constitution prohibits any form of violence against women [9]. Middayexpress (talk) 17:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic and innapropriate

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The sections "Countries where spousal rape is a criminal offence/Countries where spousal rape is not a criminal offence" start with the text:"Please note that some of the sources are not highly authentic and therefore should not always be taken into consideration. Please view the talk page for more information". This text is really inappropriate and unencyclopedic and should not be in the article. Unfortunately it is true, so to remove it while leaving the sections in the article would also be problematic. The problems with the reliability of this article have been discussed for years, and this topic is all over this talk page, but it appears that the logical solution - which is to remove these two sections and the map (both poorly sourced/unsourced) does not seem to be accepted... The response seems to be on the lines "If the sections are incorrect, unsourced etc, then fix them and do not remove them!" despite the fact that it has been explained repeatedly that they can not be fixed, because there are no reliable sources available for the about 200 states that exist in the world... and that many sources contradict each other... and that it is not always a black of white issue.5.12.61.229 (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The warning has now been removed by ip:67.174.254.238, but the problem with the lack of accuracy and reliable sourcing has not been solved... 2A02:2F0A:508F:FFFF:0:0:5679:48CC (talk) 09:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I added a "disputed" tag to the sections; the tag should stay until the problem is solved. (This tag is encyclopedic, unlike the previous warning)2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:567F:92D7 (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Removed map

Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I removed the map. This has been discussed for years.

the map doesn't cite its sources.
if a map exists, it must have sources which are:

- extremely reliable (sources for legal and medical issues are held to a very high standard), certainly random books and newspaper articles are not good enough

- up to date: we are in 2015, and so sources must be from 2015: most marital rape laws are very new: if you go back in time even 5 years ago, the laws in many countries were different than today

in many countries the situation is still unclear, as explained here in this article (the law does not exclude marital rape from the definition of rape - ie. there are no statutory exemptions - but the jurisprudence is still not well formed)

Please do not re-add the map without discussion and consensus.2A02:2F0A:508F:FFFF:0:0:50C:85A2 (talk) 02:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

You seem fairly active on this page. Don't you think it would be easier if you just made an account? Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

You had no right to remove the map. The accuracy and possible discarding of the list and maps were already discussed under the Questions and RFC - sections Countries where spousal rape is a criminal offence and Countries where spousal rape is not a criminal offence; the map part of the talk page. Your problem with the map was already discussed by some other headings if not these ones. It was concluded that the map should instead be constantly updated and corrected, not be taken down altogether. This was also the opinions of some users with a hard knowledge of the law, as seen under the second topic. The map needs to go back up. TheReportingRepoter (User talk:TheReportingReporter) 17:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The map is in violation of WP:V. There have been many discussions about the sources through the years, but there is currently no consensus to keep the map. The map was removed after a warning on the talk page: nobody objected so it was later removed. If material is in violation of Wikipedia policies (and unsourced material certainly is) than not only that there is a right to remove, but there is an obligation to do so. If you can source each country on the map to a reliable legal source (not newspapers!) dating from 2015 then restore it. Otherwise don't. Please read the policies of this encyclopedia.2A02:2F01:501F:FFFF:0:0:50C:FD91 (talk) 07:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The RFC from one year ago was closed without any consensus, and the only person who actually appeared to be "with a hard knowledge of the law" as you put it, said he did not have time to comment, and did not offer on opinion. That RFC was closed without any consensus. Please study what RFC is and how it works. If you want to start another RFC do it, but for now this unsourced map will not stay.2A02:2F01:501F:FFFF:0:0:50C:FD91 (talk) 07:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

And by the way you can't say "oh if we don't have reliable sources we'll just use what we can get (ie. poor unreliable ones) and then we'll warn users that the source might be flawed" - that's how user:TheReportingRepoter seems to think, but that's not how Wikipedia policies work. I'm saying this because user:TheReportingRepoter has in the past added to the article, above one section, the following warning text for readers: "Please note that some of the sources are not highly authentic and therefore should not always be taken into consideration. Please view the talk page for more information". 2A02:2F01:501F:FFFF:0:0:50C:FD91 (talk) 08:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Some editors seem to think that the law is a joke, and that you can make assertions about it sourcing them to random newspapers, sites, obscure books, NGOs and other non-legal writings. But the law is not a joke. With regard to this article: unless there is either a statutory exemption in the law excluding the possibility of a spouse being charged with rape, or, conversely, an explicit criminalization, you need to be very careful on making assertions about the applicability of that rape law in marriage. In this latter case (where there is neither an exemption, nor an explicit criminalization) if there isn't either a ruling from the highest court (which in civil law systems usually serves as providing a uniform interpretation of the law, thus helping with the unification of the non-unitary judicial practice of lower courts; and in common law systems provides a binding precedent which lower courts are obligated to follow) or unless there was previously a statutory exemption in the law that was removed by legislators in order to implicitly include marital rape in the ordinary rape law - then you can't freely make affirmations (though you could look at what lower courts do - though in many civil law jurisdictions non-unitary judicial practice is a serious problem). But you need real, up-to-date, legal sources for this. Such sources are simply not provided in this article for the map (and for the sections on the countries) 2A02:2F01:501F:FFFF:0:0:50C:FD91 (talk) 10:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Marital rape. 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Japan

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

According to the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices on Japan :"The law criminalizes all forms of rape involving force against women, including spousal rape, and the government generally enforced the law effectively. The law defines a rapist as “a person who, through assault or intimidation, forcibly commits sexual intercourse with a female of not less than 13 years of age or commits sexual intercourse with a female under 13 years of age.” " [10]

So I removed Japan from section "spousal rape is not a criminal offence". The source used, apart from not being reliable, states that "incest and marital rape are not defined explicitly as crimes under the penal code" which is not the same as not being outlawed, since it is included in the 'ordinary' rape law (there is no exemption). 2A02:2F01:501F:FFFF:0:0:50C:911D (talk) 01:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Marital rape. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 31 external links on Marital rape. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 06:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Marital rape. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.goss-online.org/magnoliaPublic/en/Laws--Legislation--Policies/mainColumnParagraphs/0/content_files/file12/15.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kubatana.net/docs/legisl/criminal_law_code_050603.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iwraw-ap.org/resources/pdf/BRAZIL_SHADOWREPORT_CEDAW_June%2C18%5B1%5D.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130725095022/http://sgdatabase.unwomen.org/searchDetail.action?measureId=10752&baseHREF=country&baseHREFId=1389 to http://sgdatabase.unwomen.org/searchDetail.action?measureId=10752&baseHREF=country&baseHREFId=1389
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.plan-uk.org/early-and-forced-marriage/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029203959/http://www.adn.com/2011/07/22/1980301/readers-blast-valley-paper-over.html to http://www.adn.com/2011/07/22/1980301/readers-blast-valley-paper-over.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140704000000/http://www.childinfo.org/attitudes_data.php to http://www.childinfo.org/attitudes_data.php
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.promolex.md/upload/publications/ro/doc_1332166962.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.parlamento.gub.uy/leyes/AccesoTextoLey.asp?Ley=17938&Anchor=

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) 01:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marital rape. 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) 02:54, 3 June 2017 (UTC)