Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/Sex work task force/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Featured article candidate

The article about She Has a Name, a play about a sex worker, is a current featured article candidate. If you would be willing to review the article, your comments at the discussion would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 12:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

2012 tour of She Has a Name

2012 tour of She Has a Name is currently up for a Good Article Nomination and the reviewer has requested an independent copyedit. If anyone who has not had previous involvement with the article would be willing to perform such a copyedit, it would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Nefarious: Merchant of Souls

The article about the sex trafficking documentary film Nefarious: Merchant of Souls has an ongoing featured article candidacy here. Any constructive comments you would be willing to provide there would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Sex worker rights

Hi there. There is a lot to do but I wondered if anybody was interested in doing some work on the sex worker rights article, it looks like it will be included in the rights template (see [Template talk:Rights]). in the moment its in very bad shape.--SasiSasi (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Forced prostitution

BTW, I have recently created an article for Forced prostitution, which needs "some" work and links into many other sex worker and sexual violence related articles. maybe of interest to your group.--SasiSasi (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

New article: Feminist views on prostitution

I just wanted to point to a newly-created article, Feminist views on prostitution. While an article on this topic is clearly needed on Wikipedia, it is one of the most severely biased article's I've seen to date, basically presenting almost only the radical feminist view as "the feminist" view on prostitution as a whole, and giving very short shrift to pro-sex worker feminism. (I discuss this further over on the talk page for the article.) Help in cleaning up this article is always appreciated. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 23:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

POV Forks

As a followup to the above section, I want to note that it turns out there are several sections that have serious WP:NPOV problems. These articles are essentially POV forks. In addition to Feminist views on prostitution, the articles in question are Prostitution (criminology) and Legality of prostitution (specifically, the "Debate_over_legalization" section). These forks are quite blatantly one-sided, presenting an anti-prostitution/"prostitution abolitionist" position as basically the sole political and academic view on the subject. These articles are now severely unbalanced and in violation of WP:NPOV.

The thing is, some of these subjects are large enough topics to break out into their own articles. However, it seems that in practice, the purpose of breaking these sections out into independent articles was to create editorializing articles away from watchful eyes in the original article.

I am requesting more eyes on these articles and help in reintegrating these related articles (note: I don't mean merging them back) back into simple content breakouts rather than overlapping or POV forks. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

What the status of the project?

Hey all, I've been editing anonymously for a while but have decided to create an account and get involved in fixing up the sex work related articles. I can see from the discussion above that there is concern over some of the same issues I've seen. I've started a list on my user page. any comments or suggestions are appreciated. Perhaps it might evolve into a set of guidelines for the task force or standards for sex work related articles. TJ Black (talk) 07:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Possible edit warring on Sex tourism

I seem to have been drawn into a borderline edit war over the removal of a photo by Rak-Tai - a very tendentious editor who's also removed material from List of red-light districts. This is a classic example of #8 on my list - the photo depicts prostitutes and customers and since prostitution is bad, it must be removed for fear of insulting/offending/libeling the subjects. I've tried discussing it with him, to no avail, and now another editor, Boing! said Zebedee, with no understanding of the situation, has jumped in on his side. I know I should just walk away, but this is exactly the kind of thing I'd like to see stop. Any advice? TJ Black (talk) 07:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not a huge fan of images on Wiki, they often don't add much and sometimes seem to be there for titillation. I also have not had a good experience - most images I add get removed. If you think the image is important - provide a link. Speaking of edit wars - look out for 123username who is devoted to slanting sex work articles. Mgoodyear (talk) 14:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

(Sex act) vs (Sexual act)

I have noticed that there isn't a guidline/policy on whether to use (sex act) or (sexual act) after terms that have other uses other than sexual ones, like Creampie (sexual act) and Facial (sex act). To me, this neads to be standardized and fixed. 99.20.100.127 (talk) 01:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

In the United Kingdom

In October 20, 2009 Nick Davis of the London Guardian newspaper writes about Sex Trafficking, Sex Slavery:

Guardian newspaper: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/20/government-trafficking-enquiry-fails http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/20/trafficking-numbers-women-exaggerated

Washington post article: About Sex Trafficking, Sex Slavery in the USA By Jerry Markon Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, September 23, 2007

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/22/AR2007092201401.html

Wr8675309 (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Jeff Lewis

There is a lot of controversy over the topics of sex trafficking, sex slavery, human trafficking. This controversy should be noted, included, and explained in these topics in Wikipedia.

There is a lot of controversy over the topics of sex trafficking, sex slavery, human trafficking and forced prostitution. Regarding what the definition is, the research methods used to find statistics, what the definition of a victim is, the number of child and adult victims involved, forced vs. unforced sex, Laws, government policy, how the actual prostitutes themselves feel about it, and legal vs. illegal prostitution. This controversy should be noted, included, and explained in these topics in Wikipedia. In order to improve accurate information.

There is a growing number of well respected researchers, journalists, scientists, professors, that have concluded in their research that the sex trafficking, sex slavery concept is based on emotion, morals, and monetary funding rather than facts, evidence and proof. They state that very few kidnapped, forced against their will, physically abused, raped sex slave prostitutes for profit have been found throughout the world. Their research concludes that women who enter into this type of work do so of their own free will. They also state that there are many anti-prostitution groups who simply do not like the idea of consensual adult prostitution and have distorted the facts in order to push their agenda and receive funding and money into their organizations in the form of donations, government grants, and to change the laws about prostitution. They state that these anti-prostitution groups use made up child sex trafficking statistics which they have no proof or evidence of in order to gain public acceptance for their cause. Which they then pass onto the mainstream media as press releases.

Here are links about some these reports:

Christine Monfort: http://the-myth-of-sex-trafficking.weebly.com/

Laura Maria Agustin, In her book: “Sex at the margins” http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Margins-Migration-Markets-Industry/dp/1842778609

Detailed Report and research about sex Trafficking, Sex Slavery, Prostitution: by Ronald Weitzer http://myweb.dal.ca/mgoodyea/Documents/Sex%20work%20-%20General/The%20mythology%20of%20prostitution%20-%20advocacy%20research%20and%20public%20policy%20Weitzer%202010%20Sex%20Res%20Soc%20Pol%207%2015-29.pdf

Ronald Weitzer: http://www.bayswan.org/traffick/Weitzer_Criminologist.pdf

Nathalie Rothschild spiked magazine: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/9843/

J.R. Lewis: http://sextraffickingtruths.blogspot.com/ J.R. Lewis:

http://bebopper76.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/sex-trafficking-lies-myths/

Washington post article: Human Trafficking Evokes Outrage, Little Evidence “U.S. Estimates Thousands of Victims, But Efforts to Find Them Fall Short” By Jerry Markon Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, September 23, 2007 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/22/AR2007092201401.html

Minnesota City Pages News in the March 23, 2011 issue have a story about the controversial statistics used to calculate sex trafficking and Sex Slavery victims: By Nick Pinto – Minnesota city pages

http://www.citypages.com/2011-03-23/news/women-s-funding-network-sex-trafficking-study-is-junk-science/

The Village Voice newspaper in New York has a section on the Sex trafficking controversy:

http://www.villagevoice.com/sex-trafficking/

In October 20, 2009 Nick Davis of the London Guardian newspaper writes about a large British Sex Trafficking, Sex Slavery investigation that failed to find a single victim.

Guardian newspaper: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/20/government-trafficking-enquiry-fails

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/20/trafficking-numbers-women-exaggerated

January 31, 2011: Dallas TV News WFAA show about super bowl sex trafficking finds no proof of sex trafficking, sex slavery. by JASON WHITELY Dallas WFAA news:

http://www.wfaa.com/sports/football/super-bowl/Super-Bowl-prostitution-prediction-has-no-proof--114983179.html

Angry Harry: http://www.angryharry.com/es-Where-Are-All-The-Sex-Slaves.htm http://www.angryharry.com/reHappyhookersofEasternEurope.htm

Wr8675309 (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)Jeff Lewis

Soliciting review of new article

I have written and posted a biography of Fanny White, a 19th C sex worker in New York City, as a project for a course on US women's history. Would appreciate constructive comments from anyone who has a few moments to peruse the article. Thank you, Janeweaving (talk) 02:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Trafficking of children

The sex work task force of WikiProject Sexology and Sexuality aims to develop and manage a comprehensive and accurate set of articles related to sex work, sex workers, and the larger sex industry. In the upcoming weeks, I plan to make significant edits and additions to Trafficking of children, an article that certainly falls within the scope of this task force. Currently, this article is listed as High Importance in WikiProject Human Rights, as child trafficking has been internationally recognized as a severe violation of human rights. However, it is also listed as Start Class, an appropriate classification given that this article is outdated and, overall, quite deficient in terms of content. I plan to create several new sections concerning child trafficking mechanisms, prevalence, impacts, and solutions, essentially building a solid basic structure that facilitates future contributions. In addition, I plan to include a section that focuses specifically on the ways in which female children and adolescents are disproportionately affected by trafficking practices, particularly via sex work. As I move forward with my proposed editing plans, I would sincerely appreciate any feedback. I look forward to the opportunity to develop this article, and ultimately, contribute to the work of this task force. Crr4 (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

There needs to be a distinct separation of 1. Child sex trafficking 2. Adult consensual prostitution. 3. Rape They are not the same. Adult Women are NOT children. Media coverage of trafficking and adult women's migration and sex work is confused and inaccurate. The media wrongly uses the terms 'sex work' and 'trafficking' and consensual adult sex work and child sex trafficking synonymously, perpetuating stereotypes and stigmatization, and contributing to the violation of women's right to free movement and livelihood options. They assume that if any woman moves from place to place for sex work that they are being trafficking. The media, politicians, aid groups, feminist, and religious organizations does not take into account that she may do this of her own free will. Too often women are treated like children. Adult women are not children. Sex Trafficking/Slavery is used by many groups as a attempt to outlaw all adult consensual prostitution around the world by saying that all women are victims even if they have sex willing. This hurts any real victims because it labels all sex workers as victims. Non government Organizations (NGO's) are chiefly responsible for manufacturing “a growing problem” of trafficking in order to generate revenue for their Federally funded cottage industry. They also fabricated numbers by expanding the definition of trafficking to include practically anyone. Prostitution is a business between adults and in our society adults are responsible for themselves. Sex slavery is just that, slavery and it's non-consensual."To equate the two is to say grown women aren't capable of being responsible and making decisions for themselves.

Human Trafficking Evokes Outrage, Little Evidence U.S. Estimates Thousands of Victims, But Efforts to Find Them Fall Short By Jerry Markon Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, September 23, 2007

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/22/AR2007092201401_pf.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/22/AR2007092201401.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/20/governmen... http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/20/trafficki... http://bebopper76.wordpress.com http://sextraffickingtruths.blogspot.com/ http://www.villagevoice.com/sex-trafficking/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wr8675309 (talk Wr8675309 (talk) 00:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)• contribs) 18:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Research paper Statistics from 2011 Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women (GAATW) Writer and researcher: Julie Ham GAATW on Sex Trafficking, Human Trafficking, Prostitution Sex Slavery at Sporting events such as the Olympics, World Cup, Super Bowl

WHAT’S THE COST OF A RUMOUR?

A guide to sorting out the myths and the facts

about sporting events and trafficking 2011 WHAT’S THE COST OF A RUMOUR? A guide to sorting out the myths and the facts about sporting events and trafficking

http://www.gaatw.org/publications/WhatstheCostofaRumour.11.15.2011.pdf

http://issuu.com/nswp/docs/whatsthecostofarumour.11.15.2011-1-

http://issuu.com/nswp/docs/whatsthecostofarumour.11.15.2011-1-?mode=window&pageNumber=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wr8675309 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Child forced sex trafficking is extremely rare. So the police find and arrest ADULT consensual prostitutes instead. While not finding any Children, or very few. They use the excuse of Children - But, children are not involved in this adult activity. There may be a small few who are homeless or runaways, and need cash and do sex work of their own free will. Not victims of a epidemic of terrible crime gangs. Mostly, the police found and arrested adult prostitutes and pimps. When the police go after underage prostitutes they mostly find and arrest adult prostitutes and johns. Why are the police wasting their time on adult prostitutes? Instead of spending that time going after underage prostitutes?

Why aren’t the police finding millions of children forced against their will to have sex for money? Because their aren’t millions of them. And what proof do they have that they were forced against their will?

Why are the police just finding, and arresting consensual adults? Because the child victims either don’t exist or are very few in number. They use the excuse of children to arrest consenting adults. If they are just after children, they why don’t they leave the consenting adults alone? The police arrest the consenting adults that they find Why?

If there is no children involved – why arrest the consenting adult prostitutes, johns, and pimps? They are no children involved? Why are the police wasting their time on adult prostitutes? Instead of spending that time going after underage prostitutes? Because the police are mostly after adult prostitutes, not children.

Were all the underage prostitutes forced and raped? crying, kicking and screaming while being forced, against their will to have sex for money?

If a prostitute is 17 and under the age of 18, she can not give legal consent. So, she could have wanted to be a prostitute, and given consent for sex, but since she is underage, she can not give legal consent, so legally she was “forced” even if she gives total consent to sex and it was consensual - she was “forced” according to the court and justice system. There is a BIG difference between being legally “forced” and truly being physically forced against someone’s will.

This gives the impression that all prostitutes under the age of 18 are “forced” when they may in fact, not have been. If fact, if two people who are both 17 years old have sex, they both are legally considered to be victims and sex predators at the same time. It is strange how the justice system works.

There is hard evidence that the sex slavery/sex trafficking issue continues to report false information and is greatly exaggerated by politicians, that receive fund from the government.

When the police arrest customers of prostitutes and the prostitutes themselves: They try to get the the prostitutes to say that they were forced and victims of sex trafficking even though they weren’t. These prostitutes just flat out say, ‘Nope, that’s not what’s happening.’ No one is forcing me” Then the U.S. Attorney general, senators, the police and government officials say: “We have to help them realize they are victims,” They must be brainwashed by their pimps, and johns. They say that adult women do not have the ability to make decisions for themselves about sex, therefore The government must make all their decisions about sex and who they have sex with for them. So… the police are trying to invent victims? Where no victim exist? The adult women say that no one is forcing them to work in prostitution and the police don’t believe them? So the police want these adult women to lie? and the police are forcing the women to lie about being forced? I thought lying was wrong? And isn’t it against the law to lie? -Not for the police, attorney general and other government officials. Where are all the underage children kidnapped and forced against their will to have sex for profit by a pimp? How come we don’t see any of the victims themselves complaining about it? Why don’t the “millions of child victims” talk about how they were kidnapped and forced by a evil pimp to have sex for profit? I would like to have a interview with the “millions of forced against their will raped kidnapped child victims” So I could hear their stories. Where are they? Why do we only hear from the anti-prostitution groups that received money and grants from the government, and not the millions of victims themselves? If there are Millions of them, Shouldn't the police and public know where they are, and shouldn't we hear the millions of victims speak?

Most Prostitutes are not forced. They do the work of their own free will. Sex trafficking is illegal and the penalties are very severe. It is very difficult to force someone to be a prostitute, they would have to have 24 hour guards posted and be watched 365 days a year, 24 hours per day. Have the threat of violence if they refused, and have no one notice and complain to the authorities or police. They would need to hide from the general public yet still manage to see customers from the general public and not have the customers turn the traffickers in to the police. They would need to provide them with medical care, food, shelter, and have all their basic needs met. They would need to have the sex slaves put on a fake front that they enjoyed what they were doing, act flirtatious and do their job well. They would have to deal with the authorities looking for the missing women, and hide any money they may make, since it comes from illegal activity. They must do all of this while constantly trying to prevent the sex slaves from escaping and reporting them to the police. They would need to prevent the general public from reporting them into the police. This is extremely difficult to do, which makes this activity rare. These criminals would be breaking dozens of major laws not just one. Kidnapping itself is a serious crime. There are many laws against sex trafficking, sex slavery, kidnapping, sex abuse, rape, sexual harassment etc. If someone is behind it, they will be breaking many serious laws, be in big trouble, and will go to jail for many long years. And do you actually think that there is a long line of people who want to have a career as a sex slave kidnapping pimp?

There is a lot of controversy over the numbers of children who are forced sex slaves. The real factual answer is that no one knows. There is hard evidence that the sex slavery/sex trafficking issue continues to report false information and is greatly exaggerated by politicians, the media, and aid groups, feminist and religious organizations that receive funds from the government, The estimate of children who become new sex slaves ranges anywhere from 40 million a year to 5,000 per year all of which appear to be much too high. They have no evidence to back up these numbers, and no one questions them about it. Their sources have no sources, and are made up numbers. In fact if some of these numbers are to believed which have either not changed or have been increased each year for the past twenty years, all girls on earth would currently be sex slaves. Yet, very few real forced against their will sex slaves have been found.

http://bebopper76.wordpress.com/human-trafficking-in-denver-colorado-colorado-springs-sex-trafficking-rocky-mountain-states-research-papers-on-sex-slavery/

http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/what-do-you-really-know-about-hookers/#comments

http://www.lauraagustin.com

http://www.sexhysteria.com/

http://www.policeprostitutionandpolitics.com/

http://weconsent.org/pages/sex-trafficking/article-1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wr8675309 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The following information is from a report from the Crimes against children research center which talks about the Unknown Exaggerated Statistics of Juvenile Prostitution.

http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/prostitution/Juvenile_Prostitution_factsheet.pdf

Crimes against Children Research Center ● University of New Hampshire ● 126 Horton Social Science Center ● Durham, NH 03824 (603) 862‐1888●Fax: (603) 862‐1122●www.unh.edu/ccrc

Sex Trafficking of Children: What are the Numbers? By Brenda Zurita http://www.cwfa.org/familyvoice/2011-11/CWA_FamilyVoiceInsight_Nov2011.pdf

Rights work reports: http://rightswork.org/

http://www.gaatw.org/publications/WhatstheCostofaRumour.11.15.2011.pdf

Wr8675309 (talk) 00:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)Jeff Lewis

Revision to Sex Workers' Rights

I propose editing the current article Sex Workers' Rights because, as it currently stands, it is not comprehensive and all-encompassing of the movement. My contributions would generally include an expansion in all of the sections so that they give a better synopsis of the multiple aspects of sex workers' rights. I also would like to add a section pertaining to the specific dangers that sex workers' face and a disease/prevention section. Furthermore, the current article needs a section about oppositions and criticisms of the movement so that future readers can understand what sex workers are fighting for and why the opposition is not in favor of them having rights. This would help bring neutrality to the article. Some of the sources I am looking into using include: an interview of a sex worker by Janice Raymond,the Prostitution Pro Con website, "Sex Workers and Sexual Assault: The Hidden Crime" by Julie Robinson and Bridgett Madeline, and many more. I also found sources related to disease prevention in sex work and particular instances of the abuses of sex workers' rights. Finally, I think that the Dominatrix Employment Issues is a really important aspect of sex work that deserves attention. However, it is difficult to find information about this particular area. Could you all recommend potential sources to help expand upon this area? Also, is there anything else you think I can do to improve the quality of this article? Feedback about additional resources in general would really be appreciated. Thanks!Lgriffin92 (talk) 03:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Creation of Sex Work and Migration Page

There are currently several related articles on Wikipedia that touch upon the various issues surrounding sex work performed by migrants. Articles such as migrant worker, sex worker, prostitution, human trafficking, and subsections of articles addressing migrant sex worker populations in country-specific contexts currently exist. However, none of them specifically address the growing migrant sex worker population in many regions that have spurred debates surrounding anti-human trafficking discourse, anti-immigration efforts, and the effects of globalization on female migrants. None of these articles explicitly address the connection between migration and sex work in various national contexts, and the role globalization has played on moving bodies and sexual commerce across borders. Sex work as a specific labor sector in the larger literature of migration is significant not only for its prevalence among female migrants, but for the intense reaction state governments have had and the debates that have appeared. The literature has shown that there is something about commercial sex as a form of migrant labor that has influenced and spurred larger debates on immigration, human trafficking, and gender inequality. I believe an article that summarizes not only the characteristics of migrant sex work, but also explains the context and reactions for migrant sex work would fill in many of the missing gaps and subsections on Wikipedia. My proposed article would give an in-depth introduction to how migration and sex work have intersected to become a very influential sphere of debate for states around the world. The unique characteristics of sex work and migration make it a significant topic, and sections about its place in current debates surrounding immigration and human trafficking make it a particularly contentious and timely topic.

I would love to get any feedback or thoughts on this article, including any specific case studies, sources, or subsections you'd like to see. Some of the sections I propose include: migrant demographics and backgrounds, push factors for sex work and migration, pull factors for sex work and migration, migrant sex worker legal status (in regards to both migration status, human trafficking legislation and legalization/decriminalization of prostitution), state and NGO response, transnational migration, urban-to-rural migration, and case studies for European Union (specifically Spain, Netherlands, Denmark), Japan, and United Arab Emirates. Lillyyu (talk) 04:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The article is up. Please feel free to provide edits and feedback. Migrant sex work. Lillyyu (talk) 08:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Featured Article promoted in 2013, nominated for deletion

2012 tour of She Has a Name, Featured Article promoted in 2013, has been nominated for deletion.

Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 tour of She Has a Name.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Change of Article Name

Hello, A user has requested the name of the article Belle_de_Jour_(writer) - which comes under your Wikiproject - to be changed.
The user seems unfamiliar with wikipedia's naming policies and the name change procedure.
His reasoning behind the move seems to be in contravention of those naming policies, whilst he is claiming consensus a little too soon.
I think it would be valuable to get more input from other users.

Discussion at: [[Talk:Belle_de_Jour_(writer)#Moving_this_page_to_Brooke_Magnanti.3B_reexamining_this_issue.2C_wanting_to_move_it]

Thanks. --Rushton2010 (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Skene's Gland/Female Ejaculation/New information

I have recently been researching the Skene's gland because of recent personal experience related to this topic & have found it not only to be true, but absolutely NOT a myth because I have personally experienced this in the past year & a half at age 56. It led me to the article "Female Ejaculation" written by Dr. David Delvin . The swelling of blood during sexual arousal is something that I personally have been trying to figure out because this is not a "typical" or even "normal" thing that I have ever experienced. After speaking with my doctor, have only found out that the reason for "multiple" bruising all over my body including stomach, breasts, back & arms is related to what I have learned to be "female ejaculation" & the Skene's gland.

Not only these examples but the amount of liquid coming from these glands, have been a question for me because it almost is always during sex that I have a minimum of a 1/4 cup up to as much as several cups of fluid. This has lead my partner & I to stop using towels & start using 2-3 disposable pads that become drenched every time with this fluid.

My personal advice to any women that have experienced this is to "go with the flow" because it can be the most absolute wonderful experience with a partner or without. I am sharing this information not only so that I can become more educated but for all the other woman out there, as well. Mbrooks3 (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Lexicons

A new problem just came up - someone deleted a whole section of two Prostitution by country pages, to wit Prostitution in Sweden and Prostitution in Norway. The sections were headed Prostitution in Swedish, and Prostitution in Norwegian respectively. After an editing war I mothballed them into the talk pages pending discussion. Some of the criticisms was sarcastic and inappropriate, eg it would encourage trafficking, but in a comment on my talk page - because it was "unsourced". The rationale is that much of the material I used in writing those pages used original material in the language of the country, and the words to search on seemed relevant. Now maybe the heading was wrong, the position in the article wrong - near top, but it seems to me a useful addition, for instance here is one;

Prostitution is also called "prostitution" in Swedish, however sex work is called sexarbete, and a sex worker is sexarbetare. Sexual services are sexuella tjänster, purchasing sex is sexköp, and the law banning the purchase of sex is referred to as Sexköpslagen. Amongst third party activities, pandering or procuring is koppleri. A pimp is a hallick or sutenör, although pimp is now used in Swedish slang. A brothel is a bordell, and a madam is bordellmamma.

The links are to the appropriate pages on that county's Wikipedia. The Norwegian was more comprehensive. I used the original terms in parenthesis in the articles as much as possible. Can we discuss this? If there is concensus I will restore the sections. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I am one of the editors who deleted the sections, and I object to your implication that I have been edit warring. I removed the sections because the content was unencyclopedic, and IMO against WP:NOT#DICT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I have never seen similar sections in other articles, and I don't think that they contributed to the article. I could understand including them if there were some language-specific terms or concepts that didn't exist in English and had to be explained, but the words above can easily be translated to English. Sjö (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The thing is: Mgoodyear has been alone against 3 other editors here, Sjö, Iselilja, and myself. There is no source for this lexicon, and the only argument that I can see Mgoodyear have made is that it is useful for his research. But that is not an argument to have this in the articles. They are now moved to the talk-pages, and I do not object to that. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

For clarification - edit war refers to when people repeatedly undo each other's edits, so I think that fits the definition, and usually requires resolution. A better method is discussion, from which everyone learns something. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't quite see how a lexicon can be considered 'unencyclopedic'. No, not my research, users. Let's take an obvious example - a user comes to the page to learn more about the subject, and goes to one of the links say in Norwegian, but is not a native speaker. They can use such terms to search the document. Next they might want to search the internet or other documents. In either case if they entered 'prostitution' or 'prostitution Norway' they would get very little, but if they knew to enter prostitusjon, the unique Norwegian word, they would retrieve a vast amount of literature. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm also looking for feedback on what would be considered acceptable 'sourcing' for translations of words. For instance in Prostitution in Sweden all words were linked to the appropriate page on the Swedish Wikipedia. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

And I completely forgot in the heat of the moment, to state that the idea originally came from the Norwegian Wikipedia article itself which includes a lexicon - Norske betegnelser innen prostitusjon. I hope that helps. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 00:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

There have been further deletions of Norwegian words from Prostitution in Norway which I am reverting pending discussion here. These were sourced and repeated deletions could be perceived as verging on vandalism. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is supposed to be informative. To take one example - it is important the words that sex workers use. The profession is stigmatised and attracts many derogatory words. Sex workers in describing their work, try to use more positive words that are empowering, for instance they see - contrary to 19th century views - that they are contributing to sexual health and sexual education, a perspective supported by organisations such as the WHO. These conversations could of course take place in almost every country. These were all well sourced.

As for the other issue - although I do not currently have a source to confirm that 'free brothels' never happened - only that they were planned - even if they were stunts, it was a symbolic gesture - and deserves to be included - with clarification. Thanks. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The issue is far greater than these two pages, or even this project. To be consistent one would need to remove foreign words from dozens of pages in this project alone, let alone across the whole of Wikipedia. It would be very difficult to discuss many topics based in non English speaking countries without the use of the local words.

The other consideration is search engines. An English speaking user coming across the word hallik, and seeking its meaning might enter it into a search engine, and would be faced with many Norwegian only pages, and be none the wiser. Yet if we elect to retain the term here, given the prioritisation of Wikipedia on search engines, the meaning of the word would be obvious immediately. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with the way the Norwegian terms are integrated in the article, I think it's perfectly reasonable to e.g. mention that some words are preferred by the prostitutes themselves and mention them in that context. What Huldra, Iselilja and myself objected to is a lexicon, a list of English words with their Norwegian or Swedish translation. It isn't a greater issue, since I have never seen any such section in any other article. Sjö (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to broaden/rename HIV/AIDS in the pornographic film industry

There is a discussion, Talk:HIV/AIDS in the pornographic film industry#Propose broaden scope and rename, that members of this project may be interested in. Lightbreather (talk) 23:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Good Article promoted in 2013, nominated for deletion

1. Critical response to She Has a Name
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critical response to She Has a Name

WP:GA article Critical response to She Has a Name, promoted in 2013, nominated for deletion, discussion page is at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critical response to She Has a Name. — Cirt (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Prostitution in Canada template

In Template:Prostitution in Canada should the headers for organizations "Anti-prostitution" and "pro-prostitution" be changed to something more accurate and neutral? Discussion at Template talk:Prostitution in Canada#changing "Anti-prostitution" and "pro-prostitution" headers? Haminoon (talk) 10:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Involuntary celibacy

This RfC on whether we should have an article on involuntary celibacy might be relevant to editors from this WikiProject. CorporateM (Talk) 17:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

JC's Girls

I have started an FAC for the article about JC's Girls, an organization of Christian women who evangelize to female workers in the sex industry. The reviewers who have contributed to the FAC so far seem sharply divided. Any constructive contributions would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 02:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Request for input at Talk:Call girl

A dispute is beginning at call girl as to whether call girls should be described as "prostitutes" or "sex workers" in the lede. Your input would be welcome! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Elijah Daniel for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Elijah Daniel is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elijah Daniel (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sagecandor (talk) 04:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Prostitution in Oceania

There has been a suggestion on Talk:Prostitution in Oceania that the table (summary of legal aspects in each country) should be removed. To keep articles consistent, this might impact other 'Prostitution in (Continent)' articles. Any opinions? --John B123 (talk) 17:40, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Importance of 'Prostitution in (Country)' articles

The 'sex-workers-importance=' ratings didn't seem to have much logic, for example, Prostitution in Kolkata was rated as high importance but Prostitution in the United Kingdom was only mid-importance.

Whilst the 'importance' is subjective to a degree, as a starting point I have reclassified the ratings as follows:

High Importance

• Countries with more than 100 million population: Bangladesh; Brazil; China; Ethiopia; India; Indonesia; Japan; Mexico; Nigeria; Pakistan; Philippines; Russia; United States;
• Major English speaking countries: Australia; Canada; Ireland; New Zealand; UK; (US already included)
• Significant neighbouring countries to English speaking counties above: Belgium; France; Germany; Netherlands; (Significant neighbours of US & Canada already included, no significant neighbours to Australia or New Zealand)
• Countries used as models of prostitution: Sweden; (New Zealand already included)

Mid-Importance

• All countries unless listed in high or low

Low Importance

• Counties with less than 3 million inhabitants: Albania; American Samoa; Andorra; Anguilla; Antigua and Barbuda; Armenia; Aruba; Bahamas; Bahrain; Barbados; Belize; Bermuda; Brunei; Bhutan; British Virgin Islands; Botswana; Cape Verde; Caribbean Netherlands; Cayman; Comoros; Cook Islands; Curaçao; Cyprus; Dominica; Djibouti; East Timor; Equatorial Guinea; Estonia; Falkland Islands; Faroe Islands; Federated States of Micronesia; Fiji; French Guiana; French Polynesia; Gabon; The Gambia; Gibraltar; Greenland; Grenada; Guadeloupe; Guam; Guernsey and Jersey; Guinea-Bissau; Guyana; Iceland; Isle of Man; Jamaica; Kiribati; Latvia; Lesotho; Liechtenstein; Lithuania; Luxembourg; Macau; Maldives; Malta; Marshall Islands; Martinique; Mauritius; Mayotte; Monaco; Montenegro; Montserrat; Namibia; Nauru; New Caledonia; Niue; Northern Mariana Islands; Palau; Qatar; Republic of Macedonia; Réunion; Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha; Saint Kitts and Nevis; Saint Lucia; Saint Pierre and Miquelon; Saint Vincent and the Grenadines; Samoa; San Marino; Sao Tome and Principe; Seychelles; Sint Maarten; Slovenia; Solomon Islands; Suriname; Swaziland; Tokelau; Tonga; Trinidad and Tobago; Turks and Caicos Islands; Tuvalu; United States Virgin Islands; Vanuatu; Vatican City; Wallis and Futuna; Western Sahara; (Not all have pages)

Where we have 'Prostitution in ....' article that are a city, a sub-divisions of a country, or a country that no longer exists, I have put them in the category below their parent country. (eg Prostitution in the United States is high, so Prostitution in Nevada is mid-importance.)

This may be an over-simplistic way of categorising the articles, and some adjustments are probably needed.

Any thoughts on how to improve further would be appreciated --John B123 (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Rfc - What should be considered 'pimping'

I've added an Rfc on the [[Talk:Talk:Prostitution in Oceania]] page. Any comments welcome. John B123 (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Prostitution outline article

Following discussions on Talk:Prostitution by country, I've put together a list of Prostitution in ... article for the proposed List of prostitution-by-area articles article in my sandbox User:John B123/sandbox. The list is very long so it might be better to have separate lists for each region. If so what do we call them, List of prostitution-by-area in the Americas articles gets a bit unwieldy? John B123 (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I replied over there so as to keep the discussion in one place, but I don't really see a need for this. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife: Hi. The discussion on Talk:Prostitution by country has expanded beyond the original of what to do with Prostitution by country. I've tried to split the discussion so that what to do with Prostitution by country, and where to put the existing content if we move it off the page stays on that page, but the more general discussion about some sort of user friendly indexing system moves over here as it's not specific to that page. I'm not really sure what you meant by 'a summary-style breakout from this page to the regions to the countries.' John B123 (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

If Prostitution by region links (summary-style) to each Prostitution in X region article, which in turn links (summary-style) to each Prostitution in X country/territory/whatever article, readers can easily find what they're looking for. This is especially so if they were linked together with a footer template (on top of a category structure). The additional index is unnecessary in my book. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

That was one of the intention and is a logical way of doing it. Sometimes it will fall down though, if for example you don't know which region a country is in. If you think of a book, say a car technical manual, you look at the 'contents' at the front and it's divided into sections. Each section is then further subdivided. So if you want to find the section on camshaft, you look first for the main section 'engine' and then through that section for camshaft. If you cant find what you're looking for then you turn to the back of the book and look in the 'index'. In a way we're proposing to create a secondary way of finding article, a sort of 'index'. John B123 (talk) 10:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@John B123: This sounds to me like a sensible rationale for having a List of prostitution-by-area articles. The only difficulty I can see is that if our target reader doesn't know which region a country is in, then splitting it up into regional sections (as in the User:John B123/sandbox example) won't help them. Ideally, if this is to function like one of the WP:INDEXES, it should presumably be alphabetic. The most common method I've come across to reduce length in these cases is to separate the content up alphabetically on different sub-pages, as in the Index of Thailand-related articles. However, I'm not sure that the content we've got here is any longer than one of the sub-pages of the Thailand Index, so we could probably consider keeping it all on one alphabetic page. An additional consideration is whether we should call this article the Index of prostitution-by-area articles and base it on the Category:Prostitution by country (which all the articles should be in anyway). What do you think? - Polly Tunnel (talk)

@Polly Tunnel: Hi. I don't know when you last look at talk, but I've added columns to shorten the page. (using Template:Div col, the number of columns increases with screen width). My reservation in having one long list was that you need to scroll down one column and then scroll up again to start the next one. However arranging it in 'letter sections' as on Index of Thailand-related articles 0 to J overcomes this. I don't think we'll need sub pages. The only slight problem is articles such as Prostitution in the Republic of Macedonia, do we add it under 'R' for republic or 'M' for Macedonia. As users may look for the article in either place, I would suggest an entry under both letters. Index of prostitution-by-area articles would be my preference. I'm not sure all article are in Category:Prostitution by country, some seem to be in say Category:Prostitution in Africa but not Category:Prostitution by country. On a side note, should the category be Category:Prostitution by area, as per earlier discussions on country/area? John B123 (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@John B123: The draft in User:John B123/sandbox looks great with its alphabetic structure. I'm not sure that countries with multiple words in their names will be a problem to most people. I've always assumed that people would look for Prostitution in the Republic of Macedonia under "M". But there's certainly no harm in multiple entries for those countries.

If there are "Prostitution in..." articles which are in continent categories but not country categories, don't we need to change the categories used on those pages to make them more specific? The rule seems to be that you must only use the most specific category possible. The hierarchy appears to be (for instance) Category:Sex industry > Category:Prostitution > Category:Prostitution by country > Category:Prostitution in the United States > Category:Prostitution in Nevada. The article Prostitution in Nevada is only in the last of these (and also in the parallel Category:Sex industry in Nevada) but I assume the hierarchy means we can regard it as being in the others too. Hence I don't think we actually need a Category:Prostitution by area as it looks like sub-national areas are supposed to end up within the Category:Prostitution by country via the category hierarchy system.

I notice that Prostitution in California doesn't appear to be in a Category:Prostitution in California because no such category exists. I suppose it ought to be a sub-category of Category:Prostitution in the United States like Category:Prostitution in Nevada is. There are specific categories like this for many of the existing "Prostitution in..." articles and I assume the newly-created "Prostitution in..." articles should have them too. Have you been creating new categories for the articles you write? Do you think we ought to be creating the category pages that are absent? There are instructions about how to do it at WP:CATEGORY, though I haven't tried them myself. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Polly Tunnel: I'll complete changing User:John B123/sandbox to an alphabetic structure. Although there's not any documentation that I'm aware of in this respect, if there are multiple articles for a country, say USA, then there is a category Category:Prostitution in the United States, which is a child of Category:Prostitution by country. However, if there is just a single article for the country, it is directly in Category:Prostitution by country. eg Prostitution in Cape Verde is in Category:Prostitution by country not Category:Prostitution in Cape Verde which doesn't exist. So all countries (we have articles for) are listed in Category:Prostitution by country either as a category or an article, but not both. I'm not sure it's worth creating Category:Prostitution in Cape Verde as it would only contain 1 item. The categories 'Prostitution by region' seem to be a different path through the hierarchy, running in parallel with Category:Prostitution by country and the same rules would apply? That said, there are lots of anomalies, probably due to different editors adding articles at different times. I think we need to go through and check everything is in the right categories.

Agree Category:Prostitution by country doesn't need to be changed to Category:Prostitution by area as sub-national articles will be in a parent country category. John B123 (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I've moved the draft to Draft:Index of prostitution-by-area articles in case anybody else wants to edit anything before moving to an article. John B123 (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@John B123: I'm glad to see you've got the category issue in hand. I was probably getting confused by the four anomalous examples of "Prostitution in..." articles which have their own category despite them being the only article in it: Prostitution in Brazil‎; Prostitution in Hungary‎; Prostitution in Latvia and Prostitution in Poland‎. More bizarrely, the Category:Prostitution in Switzerland doesn't even have the Prostitution in Switzerland‎ article in it. I was about to blame whoever created the Prostitution in Switzerland‎ article and then remembered it was me! I too had noticed that the Category:Prostitution by continent runs in parallel with the Category:Prostitution by country but I couldn't figure out a good way of resolving it, or even if such a thing was necessary. I agree that we probably need to check and rationalise this stuff at some point. As regards Draft:Index of prostitution-by-area articles, I can't seem to find the Prostitution in Tibet or Prostitution in Kolkata articles on it. Shouldn't its category be the Category:Prostitution by country rather than the Category:Prostitution? Otherwise it looks good to go. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Polly Tunnel: I've added the two articles that had been missed. and changed the category to Category:Prostitution by country. I was undecided which of the two to add it to so am happy to go with your preference.. Possibly it should also be in Category:Sexuality-related lists? I'll move the draft to an article. Like Prostitution in Switzerland‎, Category:Prostitution in Scotland didn't contain Prostitution in Scotland. John B123 (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@John B123: I can't see any problem with it being in the Category:Sexuality-related lists as well. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Polly Tunnel: Thanks. Category added John B123 (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Index of brothel articles

I've tried to make an index of brothel articles at Draft:Index of brothel articles. Suggestions welcome (including name for the article). John B123 (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

What is wrong with a category for this? I'm not sure I understand the point: it just seems to duplicate the existing categories. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Categories for brothel owners, pimps and madams‎

At the moment there are Category:Brothel owners and Category:Pimps and madams. I'm not sure these are logical categories.

Historically madams were often the brothel owners, although in modern times they're more likely to be a manageress working for the owner. Pimps and madams, whilst both controlling prostitutes, operate in dissimilar ways generally. Grouping madams with brothel owners would seem more logical than with pimps. i.e. Category:Brothel owners and madams and Category:Pimps. For certain individuals, their involvement falls somewhere between these tradition roles. It might be better to have just one category for 3rd party involvement and merge the two existing categories into Category:Brothel owners, madams and pimps or something similar. John B123 (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm strongly opposed to grouping brothel owners and pimps: that would be a huge NPOV breach. I'd also note that most of the people in Category:Pimps and madams are brothel owners and are as such mischaracterised (in large part due to that fuzzy category). Better to have Category:Brothel owners and Category:Pimps. I am also concerned about the sourcing of some of these articles on BLP grounds: someone shouldn't be in these categories unless the sourcing for their inclusion is absolutely rock-solid, because it is highly defamatory if you get it wrong. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife: I think we're both seeing the same problem, that pimps and madams are a bad choice to group together. Madams may or may not also own the brothels too, and as a lot of the madam articles are of historical American madams, then probably did own the brothel. Whether they owned the brothel or not, their 'job description' is the same, so it's not worth differentiating between the two. As a lot of brothel owners are madams, then it would seem pointless to have a category for brothel owners and one for madams when the bulk of articles in them will be the same. I'm ok with say Category:Brothel owners and madams and Category:Pimps, which would be better categorisation and help prevent any mischaracterisation. John B123 (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I see your point - I think that works. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:42, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Y New categories Category:Brothel owners and madams and Category:Pimps and of course national versions of those. - Articles reclasified into those categories John B123 (talk) 15:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Help in introduction of "List of erotic and sex workers with unnatural death"

Hi. I create a List of erotic and sex workers with unnatural death. I wrote an introduction describing the risk situations in which sex workers are exposed. But this text was deleted in a copy editing [1] edition. I am not fluent in English, so I ask someone to help me write an introduction.Guilherme Burn (talk) 11:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I've nominated it for deletion. That list is an absolute mess in so many ways - and it isn't your English that's the problem at all. The very idea of a list with these inclusion parameters is a hot mess. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Funny, I come here for help and I get a deletion. The central idea of the list is to quantify and named the victims of violence against sex workers, I do not know if this intention was clear. If the parameters of the list are "a hot mess" help me to organize them. Deleting is not the solution.Guilherme Burn (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

If you had created a list of sex workers who had been murdered, then there might have been an arguable case for inclusion, but by mashing it together with suicides and overdoses and claiming that these had occurred because of their work, you created a synthesised POV mess that was completely unsuitable for the encyclopedia. In that case, deletion was the only solution. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I think you need to define what the article is about. The title suggest it should just be a list, but your comments about social stigmatisation and violence against sex workers suggest you want to make it more, along the lines of Problems faced by sex workers. If that is the case, you need to split it into sections. For example, HIV is a problem for sex workers, particularly in 3rd world countries, but doesn't fit in to social stigmatisation, violence against sex workers or arguably unnatural deaths, but would be a valid section in a larger article.

By definition, no article is ever finished on WP. However articles need to be certain level and embryonic articles tend to get deleted. From the conversations on afD, I suspect your article may well be deleted. I would suggest you copy the article to a draft (I don't think you can move it into draft as it it's been nominated for deletion) and work on it from there. I'm happy to give you any help or advice you need to bring it up to a stage when it can be transferred back to the main space. John B123 (talk) 07:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Splitting it into sections won't solve the fundamental problem with the article: the original research, synthesis and POV issues. Discussion of issues is fine, but this listing of individual deaths and attributing said deaths to their work without evidence cannot stand in any context. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree it all needs to be verifiable etc. Splitting it up into sections would make that easier to achieve, plus it would be far easier for a reader to follow in sections rather than everything grouped together John B123 (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

You're not understanding me: I'm saying that a list definitively linking "unnatural deaths" (such as suicide and drug deaths) to stigmatised work is inherently and unsalvageably POV. The best you could do from a referencing perspective is source someone else's opinion drawing the connection, but that still makes for a synthesised mess. I cannot see a take on this list (unless it was restricted to murder) that I wouldn't nominate for deletion and be supported by the same users who have voted delete on the current one. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Murders, suicides, AIDS deaths, stigmatisation and violence towards sex workers are all valid subjects for WP. Ideally each would have it's own article, but I doubt there's enough material to create more than a series of stubs. As they are all related, then I don't see a problem with each having a distinct section within a single article. Each section would need some explanation, not just a list. Suicides would probably the most difficult to add without NPOV, verifiability etc issues. It may be that this section would need to be more generic. For example there are reliable sources that the suicide rate amongst porn stars in California is much higher than the general population.

Looking at it another way, I don't see a list of sex workers who died an unnatural death would be unacceptable if it didn't try to make a connection between the deaths and their work. John B123 (talk) 09:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

They are valid subjects - as prose articles, backed up by actual reliable sources rather than editorial synthesis of individual deaths. For example, there are no categories on Wikipedia for AIDS deaths by profession or work because it isn't an appropriate grouping. It's only the very stigma that this user thinks they're drawing attention to that makes them think that it's appropriate in this case. We already have, for example, Category:Pornographic film actors who committed suicide (one of a very broad series of suicide-by-occupation categories), which is the appropriate place to document notable suicide deaths rather than lists of non-notable and likely questionably-sourced people. Equally, we have the (albeit questionably titled) Category:Murdered prostitutes, which is again, the appropriate place to refer to individual cases, rather than a list of this nature. I am totally here for working on prose articles about these topics, but I am staunchly against any thrown-together list of this nature. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

The article has been deleted, but I think the discussion paid off. For now I'm working on existing categories. What do you think of joining "prostitutes" and "pornographic film actors" into "sex workers"? For example, Category: Pornographic film actors who committed suicide > Category: Sex workers who committed suicide, Category: Murdered prostitutes> Category: Murdered Sex workes.Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd support that. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Category:Sex workers who committed suicide

Category:Sex workers with HIV/AIDS

Category:Sex workers drug-related deaths

Category:Murdered sex workers

With these categories I believe we can classify all the unnatural and violent deaths that hit sex workers.

I would now like to expand Sex workers' rights#Risks associated with sex work, perhaps to create a Risks associated with sex work article (or Problems faced by sex workers as suggested) with redirection to even and included it in the articles of the items that were part of the list. What do you think?Guilherme Burn (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I would join The Drovers Wife in supporting the 4 categories she listed. Regarding creating a Risks associated with sex work article or Problems faced by sex workers, I have no opinion, other than at this point I see no constructive reason and I think an article or list of this nature would contain far more hype and B.S. than anything of real value.Glenn Francis (talk) 06:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The Problem I see in creating a Risks associated with sex work article or Problems faced by sex workers is that in the sex workers industry is there is far more dis-information than factual information to the point that even long-time veterans of the industry don't know what is real and what isn't. One person's experience can be, and usually is, much different than someone else's. Combining the extremely different experiences of thousands upon thousands of sex-workers and the result will be an incomprehensible mess of no value what-so-ever. (then again, once upon a time I recall someone saying 'nothing's impossible'). If someone were to create such an article, which contained only things that were absolutely, undeniably factual and true, the article would be extremely short, probably about one paragraph. Good Luck. Glenn Francis (talk) 07:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm also iffy about the framing of these articles: although I don't agree with Glenn that it's at all impossible to do it (as an idea), I do think it's extremely difficult to do it in an encyclopedic, neutral, well-sourced way. I think a better way to proceed would be to get specific (e.g. HIV/AIDS and sex work or equivalent wording) rather than trying to do large, broad, grab-bag-type articles that mash together lots of different complex issues because I just can't see a way that - on Wikipedia, at least - that doesn't turn out to be a clusterfuck. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

It is common for veteran pornstars to give seminars and lectures about what goes on in the sex industry with a question and answer period at the end. And they all do their best to present and answer as truthfully as they can. But, for everything they experienced and reveal, and regardless of how truthful their words are, there are others who have experienced exactly the opposite and their experiences and words are equally as true. Combine thousands and thousands of very truthful yet very different experiences, and what you got is one big incomprehensible mess. Possibly an extremely exceptional editor could, but the question still remains: why? Just the titles alone indicate this is gonna be a one-sided clusterfuck of mis-information. I doubt anyone is qualified or even wants to think about attempting to write an article called Risks and BENEFITS associated with sex work or Problems and SOLUTIONS faced by sex workers.

I think an article of this nature would be nothing more than click-bait for Anti-porn advocates and would most likely be misconstrued to conform with their agenda. I see it all the time.Glenn Francis (talk) 10:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Include porno actors in the wikiproject

I would like to include articles about porn actors in the scope of the WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/Sex work task force. Because in the words of @John B123: "There seems to be a competition among a few editors as to how many porn performer articles they can nominate for deletion, using very tight applications of WP:PORNBIO and WP:RS to justify deletion." What do you think of this? Guilherme Burn (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Not enthusiastic - sex work subjects are particularly dreadfully-covered across a lot of Wikipedia, whereas porn actors are covered in way more depth than many subjects without the same kind of issues. It's really nice to have some space where interested editors can hash out the problem stuff. Not that fussed about it though. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Reading Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/Sex work task force/About, 'sex work' is used in the broader sense to include porn, striptease, mens mags etc. as well as prostitution. this is borne out by articles about strippers, burlesque dancers playboy pets being tagged as part of the project. Some porn stars are already tagged as part of this project. The inclusion of non-prostitution related articles is inconsistent though. From that perspective I don't see an objection to the inclusion of porn stars. That said, the focus of the task force is generally prostitution and there are only a few active members. I'm not sure inclusion in this project would help prevent the deletion of porn actor articles.

On the subject of deletions through notability, I find this grossly inconsistent. Ruby Rubacuori was changed to a redirect in 2011 over notability, in my mind she is no less notable than Mandy Rice-Davies or Christine Keeler - same situation, different country. The Rubacuori article was changed to a redirect with the comment "merged as no other notability for this girl can be justified". This would imply a single instance of notability is not enough for inclusion, in which case a lot of articles could be deleted on this logic. For example Lee Harvey Oswald who's only notability is assassinating JFK. We have porn star articles being deleted because their 'only' notability is winning a scene AVN Award, yet we have an article on Sheila Vogel-Coupe, who's claim to fame is her granddaughter appeared on X-Factor. John B123 (talk) 08:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Help Save Bella's Gentlemen's Club

Some editors have attacked the significance of the Bella's Gentlemen's Club article. It is one of the articles to be added in the to do list whose life is hanging on precariously. Please help me save it here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bella's Gentlemen's Club —PaleheadedBrushfinch (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I supported keeping the article, but if you're interested in keeping it the sourcing really needs to be improved for this one: directory listings, blogs, sex industry review sites and Flickr are not suitable sources, and they're at least half of what's there. It needs to demonstrate significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources (for example, newspapers), and on the cited sources alone (which is what editors with no background knowledge will go by) it fails. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife: Hi, it's long time since our paths have crossed! You are of course correct about sources, unfortunately Bella's isn't as well documented in the mainstream as say Dennis Hoff's brothels. I've added what sources I could to the article. --John B123 (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:Sex work articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. There might be as few as one page in the category, or zero if someone has removed the expert request tag from the page.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  07:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

• What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
• When? June 2015
• How can you help?

  1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here

  2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)

  3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

(timestamp may not be accurate) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Another Believer (talk • contribs) 15:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

RFC on WP:PORNBIO

Hi, there is an RFC on scrapping the Pornbio notabilty guideline (SNG) taking place at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)Guilherme Burn (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Task Force Coverage

From the Sex work article; sex work is defined as prostitution, phone sex operation, exotic dancing, lap dancing, webcam modeling, pornographic film performing, and nude peepshow performing.

Most articles on the above subject are tagged on the talk page for this project, except for pornography related articles. Some are, but the majority aren't. For consistency, should we include all pornography related articles with this project, or leave them to the more specialist Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography and remove the sex work tags from the articles that have them? --John B123 (talk) 12:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't matter much, but considering Wikipedians' vastly greater interest in porn, I'd leave it to the specialists. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife: Hi. I was thinking along the same likes. --John B123 (talk) 13:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

In view of the above, I've been through the sex work task force articles and think the tag should be removed from the following: Adult Industry Medical Health Care Foundation; Aiden Shaw; Arpad Miklos; Audiovisual Media Services Regulations 2014; Barbara Dare; Dana DeArmond; Erik Rhodes (pornographic actor); Fans of Adult Media and Entertainment Award; Feminist views on pornography; Free Speech Coalition; Grabby Awards; Hot d'Or; India (actress); India Allen; Joanna Angel; John B. Root; Juli Ashton; Colby Keller; Michael Lucas (director); Michelle Bauer; Measure B; Pink Grand Prix; Pornography in India; Pornography in the United States; PorYes; SHAFTA Awards (adult video); Summer Altice; Urban X Award; Wendy Williams (American actress); XBIZ Award; X-Rated Critics Organization.

Also the following articles don't seem to have justification for inclusion: Alley Baggett; Anna Nicole Smith; Barbi Benton; Barbi Twins; Bobbi Billard; Carmen Russo; Carolyn M. West; Christina Bellin; Dan Savage; Drew Nixon; Emma Rush; Gloria Brame; Heather MacAllister (activist); Jaime Bergman; Leslie Fish; Lisa Baker; Nicole Bass; Paul Radu; Rebekka Armstrong; Sex and nudity in video games; Stacy Arthur; Susan Bernard; Veronica Vera --John B123 (talk) 14:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I missed start and list class articles when compiling the above list, so would and: 2016 California Proposition 60; Adult Film Association of America; AdultVest; Ana J. Bridges; Brussels International Festival of Eroticism; Fans of X-Rated Entertainment; List of Japanese adult video awards (1991–2008); List of members of the XRCO Hall of Fame; List of members of the AVN Hall of Fame; List of pornographic performers by decade; Pinky Ribbon Awards; UK Adult Film and Television Awards; Venus Award; Amy Lynn Baxter; Brittany Binger; Corinne Alphen; Jaime Lyn Bauer; Lynne Austin; SKY Magazine. Additionally, there are about 170 "Human trafficking in <country>" articles, only 9 of which are tagged by the sex work task force. Would propose removing these from the coverage too. --John B123 (talk) 11:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

As nobody has expressed any opposition I have removed the above articles from the task force's coverage. --John B123 (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@John B123: I disagree in List of pornographic performers by decade and in articles dealing individually with sex workers such as performers biography. The wikiproject pornografy is de facto semi-active and is very focused on commercial pornography, many of the members are reluctant to extend the themes to eroticism and sex work. I believe that the redundancy of surveillance of the two wikiprojects is beneficial, as we live a crusade against pornographic articles, with even good articles being named for exclusion.Guilherme Burn (talk) 13:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Guilherme Burn: Hi. To clarify, are you suggesting List of pornographic performers by decade and effectively those who are included in the list be included in the sex work task force coverage? I have no objection to that. My original concern was that the inclusion was inconsistent, some being included and some not. The above conversation was probably swayed by the assumption that the WP Pornography was well supported. (The task force is also "understaffed"). Cheers --John B123 (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Addition request

Can someone please add Wikipedia:Userboxes/Life/Sexuality to the For user pages section on Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/Resources and templates? Perhaps call it More sexuality userboxes, similar to the line More sexuality templates at: Category:Sex and sexuality templates on the section above. Helper201 (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Polaris Project

Hello, it appears the Polaris Project article has been heavily edited by an editor who has been paid by the Polaris Project to do so. I think many of their edits are questionable. Thriley (talk) 22:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Comparison pages

Hey, I added a few article creation requests over at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography; in particular:

• Live Stars
• SpankChain
• Unlockd (a low-fee content-subscription service)
• Comparison of camming sites
• Comparison of content-subscription services

Also see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pornography#Comparison_of_camming_sites Would be useful if any of you work on these. Blockchain use and benefits (as well as earning differences for the models themselves) is currently still not (well) described here at the wikipedia. So would be quite useful if someone takes this on. I also think this info is quite useful information that allows getting people of getting out of dangerous prostitution professions (like street prostitution) and for reducing disease transferral. --Genetics4good (talk) 14:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Is there a preferred naming convention for different articles about sex workers? I know Wikipedia is not here to Right great wrongs, but certain terms such as whore, prostitution, sex worker, full service sex worker etc.. reflect politicised positions, both positive and negative.
Most porn related articles use the term adult actor not porn star to refer to the profession. If such guidelines don't exist here yet, I'd be happy to craft a proposal. My pragmatic suggestion would be to incorporate a term consistently within same article, and note different terms if need be.
I admittedly come from a sex work is work/labor organizing perspective and try to keep this bias in mind while editing. Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

It is worth working out some guidelines within this project. The last two decades have taught us how political word choice is. Our starting point might be WP:NPOV. I did not find much discussion on the matter. See search results —¿philoserf? (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I did try and get some agreement a couple of years ago - Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 155#Prostitute vs. sex worker --John B123 (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Merging sex work and sex industry

Would like an opinion on the matter here. JustBeCool (talk) 23:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Help w matter of language

Would like an opinion on the matter here Elttaruuu (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC)