Wordsqueezer

Welcome

Hello, Wordsqueezer, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! KylieTastic (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC) Getting started Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Nordic Model approach to prostitution

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.

This applies equally to edits made whilst logged in or when not logged in and editing as an IP. --John B123 (talk) 10:56, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I am unclear what was not found as constructive. all of the edits I made have references and were accurate. If you can say what you did not approve of then I can fix it. Right now I am just trying to get a neutral definition out there and every second I make a change it is changed back.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordsqueezer (talk • contribs)

Abolitionism was used to refer to the "Nordic model" initially and the system used in the UK and other countries was known as "Partial criminalization". However the terms have changed in recent times, the "Nordic model" is now "Neo-abolitionism" and "Partial criminalization" is now "Abolitionism". The references you give are all prior to this change in terminology. This change is confusing by itself without people referring to the Nordic model as abolitionism, which now means something different.

I would also draw your attention to Bold, Revert, Discussion. If you make edits that are reverted you should discuss on the talk page not simply change back to what you think the article should read. --John B123 (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I have never heard the term neo-abolitionist until I read this article and saw the one source. abolition is still widely used in my work as a front line anti violence worker and today I checked around with many of them and on the street no one is using the term Neo abolition. I did not remove the term Neo I just added plane old simple abolition as well because it is still commonly used to refer to the end of prostitution. I have added many citations to support this.

I don't see anything in bold.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordsqueezer (talk • contribs)

Bold in this case refers to a "bold edit" not text that is in bold. Please read this link.[1]. Whilst "neo-abolitionism" may not be in use in your locality, it is internationally. --John B123 (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I work in international feminism and checked around today with co-workers, we don't know the term. Do you have more references. Also what is the problem with simply adding a term that is still used ALL the time especially by feminists. a quick google search brings up made references to the term. I don't want to delete a definition just add one.

The definition you want to add is not the common one in use and indeed has a different meaning when applied to models of prostitution. See Prostitution law for further explanation. Where you work and who you work with is irrelevant. The terminology used by NGOs etc has been adopted on Wikipedia by general consensus of editors.

Please provide examples of where it is established that the term abolitionism is no longer used and outdated. I disagree that where I work is irrelevant given it is an international NGO and that is what you are currently challenging as a place where the term is commonly used. 20 years of work in abolitionism is what informs my knowledge on the subject.

Obviously you take no head of Wikipedia policy. The procedure is once edits have been reverted, the original version should remain until the matter has been discussed and changes agreed. It is not to continually change the article back to your own point of view. --John B123 (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

It's true John I was new to the process but thank you for bring them to my attention. I will follow the process now and I hope you will do likewise by civilly coming to a consensus with me on this term. Please can you provide examples where Neo- abolitionist is used. Thee is only one reference hear and it's academic. Again, to be clear I'm not fighting to have Neo abolitionist removed as a term. But I am trying to add the term Abolitionist. All the main advocates for the Nordic Model use this term still eg.

1)https://nordicmodelnow.org 2) https://www.demandabolition.org/news/france-adopts-the-nordic-model/ 3) Abolition is the only progressive solution to prostitution, writes the activist Julie Bindel. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/11/prostitution-legalised-sex-trade-pimps-women 4) http://www.womensmediacenter.com/news-features/abolishing-prostitution-a-feminist-human-rights-treaty 5) https://www.rapereliefshelter.bc.ca/campaigns/abolition-prostitution/abolition-prostitution 6) https://www.womenlobby.org/20yrsEndDemand-Walking-towards-the-abolition-of-prostitution-in-Spain

these are just a few links I could go on but I think there is more than enough here to show that this term is still commonly used. My reason for advocating for this term to be included is that I think many people go to wikipedia first to find out the facts. They hear a term like Nordic Model or abolition and they want to know what it is all about. If someone were to search nordic they would not find out about the 20 years of important advocacy work by abolitionists to bring about the model and who are still campaigning daily to have the model adopted by more counties.

A quick google search brings up 1,000s of results, for example:

In this article about the legislation in France, it brings out the difference between "abolitionism" and "neo-abolitionism" in that in the late 19c and early/mid 20 c, the "Abolitionist Movement" sought to state regulation of prostitution not eradicate it. And similarly in the US.

In this book, the two terms are differentiated in "abolitionism" seeks to abolish prostitution by criminalising all those involved. Neo-abolitionism does not do this, but simply criminalises the buyers and third parties but not the prostitutes.

The Nordic model is based on (some varieties of) feminist ideals. Abolitionism to others may be based on religious or moral grounds. To assume all abolitionist support the Nordic model, or to imply they do by calling it abolitionism is morally wrong.

Specifically, in reference to models of prostitution, where "abolitionism" and "neo-abolitionism" have different meanings, see: See also the article Prostitution law --John B123 (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Many of these refrences use the term Abolition which just proves the point that it is still a term that is widely used.

I disagree with your summary that abolitionists advocate for the criminalization of women but that is another debate. We are not debating if one apprroach or movement is right or wrong. We are simply debating does the term even exist and is it connected to this issue. Your refrence again reinforces both - it is a term and it does exist. 

It appears you don't like abolitionists and this is colouring your editing bias. As editors we are not here to debating the issue or advocate for a particular approach. We are just neutral editors trying to give the facts. These article proves that the term is commonly used both in academia and in the general public. I think that surely wwe can come to concensus now that the term does exist.

I understand that you are now making the argument that abolitionists are viewing buying sex as morally wrong and therefore is a term not associated with the Nordic Model. I have given you ample examples of current abolitionist groups that are international that do advocate for the nordic model and for women to not be criminalized and don't advocate based on morral reasons but rather on an equality seeking end to violence against women appoach. Many of the groups are international, active, instrumental in having the laws brrought to new countries and they define themselves as Abolitionists. By not including them here it makes their work invisable and impossible to search, research etc. Even if the term was no longer used *(which I have proven is untue with refrrences) surerly that is not even an argument to leave it out because it wwas the abolitionist movement that was instrumenal to bringing the law to many of the countries. Eg. in 2014 in Canada it was the abolition coalition of Canada that advocated succesfully for the nordic model. What would be a reasonable compromise for you? Can we include abolition as an also known as term and then in the body of the text summerise this debate so your points of view are still heard.

I think the colouring of opinion here is your obvious support for the Nordic model. If you take the Muslim view on abolitionism, it includes in some territories not only the criminalisation of women involved, but physical punishment too. The article should be in harmony with the article Prostitution law to avoid confusion. --John B123 (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

References

This article does not even use the word abolition once. I think perhaps you are confusing abolition with prohibition? I don't know either that or you are abusing the editing rules by denying it's existance as a movement that is current and activly campaigning forr the Nordic Model. In any case I asked you what would be a compromise to get us to concensus. What do you suggest other than denying the existance of equality seeking abolitionists in support of the nordic model?

I'm not denying anything, I just want the article to use the internationally recognised terminology and not have the terminology hijacked. --John B123 (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (December 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Wordsqueezer/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:Wordsqueezer/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Wordsqueezer! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Wordsqueezer, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Nordic Model approach to prostitution have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Nordic Model of Prositution also known as Abolition

My suggested edit to add abolitionism as another term by which the Nodic model is sometimes refered has been rejected. The person that rejected it stated that abolitionism as a term is no longer used and that the term now is neo abolitionism. I have requested from this editor that they please provide examples where the term abolitionism is considered old and out of use and the term now is neo abolitionism. To be clear I'm not fighting to have Neo abolitionist removed as a term. But I am trying to add the term Abolitionist. All the main advocates for the Nordic Model use this term still eg.

1)https://nordicmodelnow.org 2) https://www.demandabolition.org/news/france-adopts-the-nordic-model/ 3) Abolition is the only progressive solution to prostitution, writes the activist Julie Bindel. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/11/prostitution-legalised-sex-trade-pimps-women 4) http://www.womensmediacenter.com/news-features/abolishing-prostitution-a-feminist-human-rights-treaty 5) https://www.rapereliefshelter.bc.ca/campaigns/abolition-prostitution/abolition-prostitution 6) https://www.womenlobby.org/20yrsEndDemand-Walking-towards-the-abolition-of-prostitution-in-Spain

these are just a few links I could go on but I think there is more than enough here to show that this term is still commonly used. My reason for advocating for this term to be included is that I think many people go to wikipedia first to find out the facts. They hear a term like Nordic Model or abolition and they want to know what it is all about. If someone were to search nordic they would not find out about the 20 years of important advocacy work by abolitionists to bring about the model and who are still campaigning daily to have the model adopted by more counties.

Your draft article, User:Wordsqueezer/sandbox

Hello, Wordsqueezer. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "sandbox".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 17:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)