Talk:Child sex tourism

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject iconPedophilia Article Watch (defunct)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Pedophilia Article WatchWikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchTemplate:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchPedophilia Article Watch articles

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 9 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jimenabisso2.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Children?

Who exactly are considered children, atleast when it comes to cst, people 0-18 or people 0-12 or somewhere within -(DrakeLuvenstein (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I think globally, children are defined as pre-pubescent aka lacking developed gender specific sex organs. So I would say ages 1-11 would be children. Almost all sex work that happens in Thai land is above this age so I think the article needs to be renamed to pubescent sex work and make another article for pre-pubescent sex work. Right now the article just smears all pubescent sex work while hinting at pre-pubescent. -24.239.124.140 (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. It's clear from the Child article how the word child is defined; the word most certainly includes those who have not reached the age of majority (usually meaning those who are not age 18). And if you are a hebephile, that is not much better than if you were a pedophile. Flyer22 (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

POV Check Rational

Just in reading the first paragraph of this article I see that the WP:NPOV is not being observed here. Case and point: CST is a shameful assault on the dignity of children and a form of violent child abuse and violence. Language such as that has no place on Wikipedia. Again in the Global Response section: Many governments have taken commendable steps to combat child sex tourism. Fairness of tone is fundamental in any encyclopedia.Tennekis(rant) 21:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to clean it up, but the article still needs a lot of work. Justin chat 17:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be better now. Is it time to remove these two banners? 122.148.173.37 (talk) 10:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-this article has quite a bit of POV, mainly it in calling this child abuse, the idea that having sex with children(the article doesnt specify what age children are, 0-13 or 0-18 so for now i saw 0-18) is abuse is an opinion and POV, i say the first paragraph should be changed to: Child sex tourism (CST), unrelated to Adult sex tourism (AST) is travel to engage in commercial sexual acts with minors. In an effort to counteract CST, many governments have enacted laws to allow prosecution of its citizens, for sexual acts with minors in a foreign country that may not be illegal in that country, which are illegal in theirs . It is a multi-billion-dollar industry believed to involve as many as 2 million minors.[1] I know my re-write is a bit rough around the edges so im not gonna add it yet, please someone comment on what you think. (DrakeLuvenstein (talk) 13:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

-if i don't get a response in 2-3 days im changing it, i like to reach consensus but it seems no one visits this page. (DrakeLuvenstein (talk) 07:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

-then we can just get a new source that doesn't contain bias. (DrakeLuvenstein (talk) 05:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

-anyway the source does state "Child sex tourism (CST) involves people who travel from their own countries to another and engage in commercial sex acts with children." now we could state that some countries including the US consider cst to be child abuse. (DrakeLuvenstein (talk) 05:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

-how about this - Child sex tourism (CST), unrelated to Adult sex tourism (AST) is travel to engage in commercial sexual acts with minors. Many countries consider CST to be child abuse and have enacted laws to prosecute their citizens for having commercial sex with minors in foreign countries. CST is a multi-billion-dollar industry believed to involve as many as 2 million minors. - that there would abide by the source (DrakeLuvenstein (talk) 05:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Most reliable sources, in agreeing with the western consensus, will state that this is sexual abuse and exploitation. Still, they will also use the emotive terms removed from the article. These are important points of view, but must be attributed, as they clearly fail the policy WP:NPOV. We also need a neutrally termed retrospective account of these commercial activities before the western consensus pursued CST via the international political apparatus. forestPIG(grunt) 18:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- well i can see a edit war a stirring, so to prevent that first i would like to ask why this idea for the first line is not better than the current "Child sex tourism (CST), unrelated to Adult sex tourism (AST) is travel to engage in commercial sex acts with minors." which is a rewrite of what the source says "Child sex tourism (CST) involves people who travel from their own countries to another and engage in commercial sex acts with children." thankyou (DrakeLuvenstein (talk) 03:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I agree that there are serious issues with POV in this article. Calling the pubescent sex worker business "Child sex abuse" is slander. Weasel words like "exploited children" and "victimizes" litter this article. Almost all of the 13,14,15, 16 year olds that engage in sex work do so in a consensual manner for extra money. This article screams America-witch hunt. Even the DSM5 differentiates between pre-pubescent sex and post-pubescent sex.

This article needs serious POV clean up and is an embarrassment to wikipedia. Right now it reads like a page out of the Bible. -24.239.124.140 (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent IP edits

This is the edit in question. On most other articles, this would be accepted as a rational part of the POV check. I looked through it and could not find any edits that were objectionable from the WP:NPOV standpont. Indeed, one was a minor edit. And no article dealing with a type of activity so diverse in age, culture, history and specific activity should attribute victimhood unquestionably to all individuals who fall under its gaze. This is one of the main reasons why CS Tourism and a host of similar articles seriously fail NPOV as weasel-worded proponents of a rather dogmatic "pro child" psychiatric/healthcare POV. forestPIG(grunt) 14:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

external links

Just saw the external links, and the whole host of them link to advocacy pages and campaigns. This is an article about an issue not a campaign. Wikipedia says "Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic." With this in mind "affiliated agencies" are out-of-scope.

'The Code' is also a subjective opinion and an institution sanction (ie- the un, or whom ever polices this sort of thing)

Finally, 'Virtual Worlds' is a charity working for safety. They either ought to have their own wikipage or do their own marketing/recruiting elsewhere. The guidelines also say "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." Lihaas (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual orientation

There ought to be additional information about the sexual orientation of child sex tourists. The reason for this is that there is a fairly widespread urban legend that child sex tourists are disproportionately of a homosexual orientaton. [1] ADM (talk) 02:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Translation into Chinese Wikipedia

The 02:55, 2 April 2010 SmackBot version of this article is translated into Chinese Wikipedia.--Wing (talk) 14:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tourists from the US

Last sentence, "The Protect Act shifted the burden, making predators liable for the act itself" is contradictory. In legal terms if the burden shifted then the presumption is of the intent to travel abroad for sexual predation on children. Burden shifting does not create liability, but instead changes the presumption of some fact (presumed true versus presumed untrue), but allowing evidence to the opposite. Either the Protect Act shifted the burden, or it was the organic act that initially created liability, it cannot do both.

Nowhere in the act does it say "burden" "shift" "persuasion". Of the 12 times the act mentions "evidence" the one time it deals with child sex tourism it states "it is a defense, which the defendant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant reasonably believed that the person with whom the defendant engaged in the commercial sex act had attained the age of 18 years." It doesn't seem that the act shifted the burden of proof for the element of travel with intent. 05:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DespicableJay (talk • contribs)

Youtube

Can i put some links to Youtube videos which i think are interesting for this issue? Peter Moulton (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please can you be specific about what videos you want to link to, where from in the article and why. Other than saying you cannot link to any videos showing sex with children (although I'd be amazed if Youtube hosted any of these) it's not possible to give an answer without knowing what videos we're talking about. Thryduulf (talk) 00:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I posted a video which shows a cooperation between U.S officers and Cambodian officers, which have been planning a raid for 2 years to follow and arrest U.S. child traffickers in Cambodia, specifically cusomers of a bar or pub called Martini's. Peter Moulton (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laws that apply in other countries??

I didn't know countries can set laws that apply in areas not under their jurisdiction, why wouldn't it fall under Cambodian law instead? And are there any other laws besides this that can apply abroad? The snare (talk) 14:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When the sex tourist is in Cambodia they fall under Cambodian law (which is described in the article here). When the sex tourist returns home then they fall under the laws in their home country, including any laws pertaining to child sex tourism (described in the article here). The only other example I can recall of a country making laws that apply abroad is British libel law (which is notorious). HairyWombat 03:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I wonder also if the people from the piratebay came to the US, they would be liable for what they have done. They are not US citizens though The snare (talk) 02:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The receiver of payment

This article states/defines the illegal fact as "commercial sex act as any sex act, on account of which anything of value is given to or received by a person under the age of 18..."

Does that mean that a sex act involving a minor in which the payment is made to the pimp, NOT to the child, is legal?? (Dumarest (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Unreliable sources

Our article claims that "the majority of the exploited children are under 12 years old." To support this, we cite an opinion piece from ABC that says:

Pedophiles, which make up a large group of the sex tourists that exploit children, mainly under 12, keep track of news articles that mention the locations of kids and schools in particularly poor areas.

The article's claim only pertains to pedophiles. Pedophilia is, by definition, a sexual preference for prepubescent children, i.e., mainly those under 12. As our own article states, most child sex tourists are not pedophiles.

Next we claim that child sex tourism "victimizes approximately 2 million children around the world", citing a series of non-academic sources which provide no explanation for this obviously wrong estimate. Only one cites its own source: the UNICEF fact sheet, which actually puts the figure at "as many as 1.2 million children" (again with no empirical basis). A statistic that serious should have a stronger source than tabloids and charity 'fact' sheets. KateTheSpy (talk) 12:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is good that you started a discussion about this on a Talk page. If I have understood your argument about the age of the children, you feel that stating the majority are under 12 is redundant; the context is pedophiles and, by definition, that is who they prey on. Redundancy of information is not necessarily bad; in some countries children can be as old as 17, so stating that these particular children are mainly under 12 is a useful clarification.
You state that the estimate of 2 million children being victimised is an "obviously wrong estimate", but do not explain why you think this is the case. This appears to be original research on your part. Please read WP:ORIGINAL; if you disagree with sources then you need to find other sources that support your view. It is excellent that you unearthed the UNICEF fact sheet. UNICEF is the United Nations Children’s Fund, and so is a highly credible source. However, the source actually states, "Some estimates have as many as 1.2 million children being trafficked every year." Hence, this is not the total number of children being victimised, but only the number being trafficked. I will revert your edit as it is not supported by any sources. The UNICEF reference you found is excellent, so I will include that. HairyWombat 20:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lies, Damn Lies and Thai Statistics. I am extremely sceptical about the figure of 40% of Thai prostitutes are children (under 18). Not so long ago, one NGO came up with a figure of 2,800,000 Thai women were involved in prostitution. This represents about 1 in 12 of all Thai females. Other figures have been mentioned, but the general consensus is that the real figure is in the region of 200,000. My scepticism arises from the question, that if you do not know how many prostitutes there are, how can you tell what percentage are children. Pattays has a reputed 50,000 prostitutes, yet the local newspapers typically only report a handful of cases of child sex tourists arrests monthly. The economics are such, that in order to sustain 20,000 child prostitutes, there needs to be in the region of 6000+ Child Sex Tourists at any given time. If that were the case, you would expect many more arrests. My suspicion is that the true figure is probably nearer 5%, the majority of whom are working in Thai brothels servicing Thai men and have little or no contact with Sex Tourists.86.44.145.223 (talk) 13:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regional government action: a "How-to" or "Where-to" guide?

I'm concerned with the information in the section concerning regional government actions. A lot of the information given concerns governments that have taken no action. All Caribbean countries mentioned, for example, were described as having taken no action or minimal action. Information in this section also indicates areas within certain countries where CST is especially problematic (i.e., available).

I'm in favor of the free flow of information, but at least for the sake of editorial consistency, I think the section discussing government actions should only refer to governments which have, in fact, taken action. Mentioning a nation such as Trinidad and Tobago, only to say that "there were no reports nor prosecutions on child sex tourism," implies there was a reason to list that nation other than to describe its government's actions concerning CST. I'm sorry, but this section reads like a guide on which countries to visit for CST without getting hassled by the local government.

For this reason, I think it's important to remove all listings in this section that indicate only a lack of governmental action. If it's important to include this information, then it should be included in a separate section with a title indicating the inaction (or inadequate action) of the governments listed, and there should be a consensus here giving a good reason for having such a section. Dcs002 (talk) 04:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RTP?

In the section "International law enforcement activities" the letters RTP are used in the phrase:

In both cases, local ICE agents work with their RTP counterparts to monitor the suspects’ movements while in Thailand

Yet there is no explanation as to the meaning of this acronym.

Aethalides (talk) 06:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source explains it's the Royal Thai Police. I've gotten rid of the acronym, since it was only used once. —rybec 05:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Includes, but not limited to?

This part seems ambiguous:

Under the PROTECT Act of April 2003, it is a federal crime, prosecutable in the United States, for a U.S. citizen or permanent resident alien, to engage in illicit sexual conduct in a foreign country with a person under the age of 18, whether or not the U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident alien intended to engage in such illicit sexual conduct prior to going abroad. For purposes of the PROTECT Act, illicit sexual conduct includes any commercial sex act in a foreign country with a person under the age of 18.

If any sex act is unlawful, then it should just say "any sex act".

If it is ONLY a "commercial" sex act that is unlawful, then "includes" should be removed and replaced with "is" -75.71.20.179 (talk) 04:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Simple possession of child pornography is legal in Argentina

Flyer22 keeps reverting this to make a statement that suggests child pornography possession is illegal in Argentina. I have many sources for this. I used one from the United States Government https://www.dol.gov/ilab/reports/child-labor/findings/2012TDA/argentina.pdf

"The Penal Code criminalizes facilitating, promoting, or benefitting economically from child prostitution.(36, 37) The Penal Code also prohibits the use of children in pornographic shows and in the production, publication, and distribution of child pornography. However, it does not criminalize the possession of child pornography for personal use."Boilingorangejuice (talk) 22:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The full story is here. Your edits were not supported by the source. That you finally decided to provide a source to support the text you were edit warring over will surely be appreciated by some. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Child sex tourism. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Child sex tourism. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Child sex tourism. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Child sex tourism. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 23:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Child sex tourism. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In chapter 5 (Policing of sex tourism)

The format of the paragraphs in this chapter is not coherent and consistent. For some reason only in SK paragraph it is talking about the policing in extrajudicial regions, not the tourists WITHIN the country. If that is the case, there should be paragraphs for the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, and France too, as the majority of child sex tourists are coming form those countries.

If people wanna understands more about which countries sends the most child sex tourists and extrajudicial policing of each countries, there should be independent sections. -strawburry17c (talk) Edited at 6:29 PM, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Some of the references are dated so it is possible that the information in the article may also be out of date. However, looking at the Trafficking in Persons Reports for 2010 (which is referred to in the article) and the latest 2019 report, very little of changed. Finding more recent sources and, if necessary, updating the article, is the way forward not simply deleting large chunks. --John B123 (talk) 22:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Irrespective, your edits have been reverted by two different editors. You now need to gain consensus here to make those changes, please see WP:BRD--John B123 (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I already talked with Materialscientist and he said he reverted only because I didn't explain the reasons I deleted initially. -strawburry17c (talk) 18:32 , 20 April 2020 (UTC)
@Strawburry17c: Please do not alter the conversation so other editors comments no longer make sense. If you want to change your comments then use strikethrough (<s>......</s>) and then add whatever you want to reword. Whatever reason Materialscientist reverted your edit, the fact is your edit has been reverted twice. There is a great difference between improving an article as you describe above (which is now highly modified from your original post) and simply deleting the content you don't like. --John B123 (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well sorry for editing my words, I wasn't too familiar with Wikipedia editing. (talk) 20:14 , 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Inaccurate quote of source at Cambodia

First of all, the source is not directly linked to the reports so i think it's better to change it to this.

https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/142982.pdf

It says, "According to the The Trafficking in Persons Report of 2010 reports that the sale of virgin girls continues to be a serious problem in Cambodia, and that a significant number of Asian and other foreign men, primarily South Korean, travel to Cambodia to engage in child sex tourism."

However, if you look at the original quote, it says like this. "The sale of virgin girls continues to be a serious problem in Cambodia, with foreign (mostly Asian) and Cambodian men paying up to $4,000 to have sex with virgins. A significant number of Asian and other foreign men travel to Cambodia to engage in child sex tourism."

There isn't any information or indication in the report that South Korean is the major child sex traveler.

According to Protection Project (2007), United States citizens appear to be frequent perpetrators of child sex tourism in Cambodia, constituting nearly 27 percent of offenders arrested in this country for child sex tourism offenses, as based on available data. -strawburry17c (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, it doesn't mention South Koreans, but changing it to ...continues to be a serious problem in Cambodia, and that a significant number of Asian and other foreign men, primarily United States citizens, travel to.... is equally inaccurate. --John B123 (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I only changed to United States citizens, not sure why you think I changed entire sentences. The quote was accurate, except for that. -strawburry17c (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The source doesn't say "primarily United States citizens" anymore than it says "primarily South Korean". You can't complain that the source has been misquoted and then misquote it yourself.--John B123 (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure who is the one complaining. You changed the entire sentences just because you don't like the words "United States citizens" while you didn't do anything while it was an earlier version. You want me to add a quote "United States citizens appear to be frequent perpetrators of child sex tourism in Cambodia, constituting nearly 27 percent of offenders arrested in this country for child sex tourism offenses, as based on available data" from Protection Project (2007) by Johns Hopkins University then? -strawburry17c (talk) 21:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the diff [2], no sentences were changed, just "primarily United States citizens" removed. --John B123 (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From the current (2019) Trafficking in Persons Report[3] "Cambodian men form the largest source of demand for children exploited in sex trafficking; however, men from elsewhere in Asia, Europe, the United States, Australia, and South Africa travel to Cambodia to engage in child sex tourism", and the 2019 Trafficking in Persons Report: Republic of Korea[4] states "Some South Korean men engage in child sex tourism in Cambodia, China, Mongolia, the Philippines, and Vietnam." --John B123 (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source doesn't exist.

http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/nation/200510/kt2005103118273511990.htm the original source stopdemand.org was entirely dependent on while making its page doesn't even exist, which significantly reducing the credibility of the entire sources.

There are more reliable explanation based on vastly more credible sources (i.e, Trafficking in Persons report 2019) available so i think it's enough. -strawburry17c (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/nation/200510/kt2005103118273511990.htm is available at the internet archive [5]. The 2019 Trafficking in Persons report for Korea, as I posted above, confirms South Korean men travel abroad for child sex tourism, including to Cambodia. --John B123 (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Its citation is "unnamed panelist" and there are no real sources to the claims, just referencing random civic group hosting random "international symposium" (we don't even know which activist were there) There are much more reliable source like Trafficking in Persons report 2019 and you don't even need to quote a deleted news article from its original site. -strawburry17c (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Child_sex_tourism"