Talk:Sexual exploitation and abuse in humanitarian response

To be expanded

I was surprised that there was no article on this topic. I am aware that there is a lot of material which could be used to expand this page and I hope to find time to work on it. However, in the meantime, I have taken some text from other articles to get the ball rolling. --Joel Mc (talk) 11:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• I was just on NPP and was going to say I thought there was an article on this already. Even if there isn't, with a long title like that and the few wikilinks you'll be able to create, nobody will ever read this. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 11:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• Yeah, it's covered pretty well in Peacekeeping. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 11:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• Thanks for this. The reason for the long title was to distinguish it from other types of SexEx. There is a huge amount of work going on in this area. What do you suggest about the title? Would a couple of redirects help. It is a serious problem and quite distinct from the serious problem of peacekeepers (who are not involved in humanitarian response). This is about unarmed people (mainly men) who use their control over food, shelter, etc to sexually exploit the refugees, internally displaced people etc. (Mainly women) Any suggestions that you might have are most welcome. --Joel Mc (talk) 12:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, I find that the search for sources, especially Google News, gets the mental juices flowing. Sometimes the journalist "community" has come up with a term organically. Looking in the scholarly literature finds good sources but poor English. You could also ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management. You are going to have to blank this page soon and recreate it, there is an "l" missing from exploitation (or move, but that leaves a trail). Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oo, how about "Sexual exploitation by aid workers"? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent Edit

I have tried to put this into coherent form. I have added references, removed tags, and added text. This was done a little hurriedly, but I will be away and I wanted to make the first step to an acceptable form. --Joel Mc (talk) 14:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverted Edits of Account77

There is no reason to edit out the referenced material about the earlier history i.e. how the project began at ICVA. More info about BSO is good, but too much skews the article; it is about the whole issue and maybe a more detailed account of BSO can be created in a specific entry or could be a section in Humanitarian Accountability Partnership International entry.--Joel Mc (talk) 08:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Reverted to sexual exploitation and abuse link in first sentence

This is a specific link to the use of the term "sexual exploitation and abuse" which is related to humanitarian principles. The proposed links to "exploitation" and "abuse" are about more general definitions. The link later in the para to "sexual abuse" works well. Since that is from a quote, the phrase "sexual abuse and exploitation" remains even though the more wide-spread use, I believe is "sexual exploitation and abuse" or "sexex" in the jargon.--Joel Mc (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Title Change

I have tried unsuccesfully to undo the move-title change. The longer title was chosen on purpose as it reflects more accurately the issue and the language used in the humanitarian community. It is also the title of the UN investigation. Such a change should have been discussed before as it also affects search results. I would appreciate an indication of how one might undo the move-title change.Joel Mc (talk) 11:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't discuss the page move (occasionally I move pages as an editor to bring their titles into better agreement with article-title policy) because I didn't think it was controversial; the original title seems redundant to me (since exploitation is abuse), but if you feel strongly about it feel free to change it back. Perhaps other editors in the human-rights project (to which I assigned the article, since it seemed appropriate) would like to weigh in first, though; you seem to have a history of reverting others' edits to this article (see above). All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 14:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Because there is often confusion about equating the terms abuse and exploitaion, humanitarian actors working on the issue are careful to use the full term sexual exploitation and abuse, defining its parts as follows: "Sexual abuse is actual or threatened physical intrusion of a sexual nature, including inappropriate touching, by force or under unequal or coercive conditions." And "sexual exploitation is any abuse of a position of vulnerability, differential power or trust for sexual purposes; this includes profiting monetarily, socially or politicallyfrom the sexual exploitation of another."Protection from Sexual Exploitation etc. I do feel rather strongly about moving it back. Even if this is not quite in keeping with article-title policy. It may take me a little time to figure out how to move it back. In any case I am quite happy to first see the comments from other editors, particularly those who know something about humanitarian principles which are related to, but not the same thing as human rights...(One spin off from this exchange is that I have discovered a number of dead links, particularly with respect to UN docs which I will try and fix.)Joel Mc (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, and this link has step-by-step instructions on moving a page; once you know how, it's very easy (this page particularly, since there is no sort key or redirects). Good luck and all the best, Miniapolis (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)