Talk:Sex workers' rights/Archive 1

Archive 1

Discussion of Proposed Merger btw Sections of Sex Worker & Sex Worker Rights

Would that properly be called a merger? What I mean to say is that there are sections of the sex worker page that would more appropriately be dealt with on the separate page Sex Worker Rights. The sex worker page can give a brief outline of the issues, but ultimately refer people there. I have already moved the said sections, but am waiting for other input before going so far as removing them completely from the current sex worker page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NoMonaLisa (talk • contribs) 22:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

So glad to see this entry finally emerge. I vote for removing them (but I think the picture of the statue is relevent to both btw) CyntWorkStuff (talk) 03:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and support! I feel like some direct dialogue/ contact with some of the frequent contributors and editors to the sex worker related pages should happen before we delete these sections from the sex worker page. I'm still waiting for more opinions, but may take the initiative to get in touch in the next week or so if I don't hear too much else wise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NoMonaLisa (talk • contribs) 06:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup and expansion

I cleaned this up... the article could do with some expansion and further work, but its a start.--SasiSasi (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination - expansion

This should be 5 fold (there is a list and some quotes which I guess dont count). The Development of a rights-based approach/World Charter for Prostitutes' Rights (1985) section was imported from another article (main link), so this does not count, but even excluding this section this should be a 5 fold expansion. Not sure if it meets all the other extra rules though....?--SasiSasi (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

North America

The current situation in the State of Rhode Island is that so-called "indoor prostitution" is currently legal. Streetwalking is still considered a public nuisance and the many Asian massage parlors (AMP's) are not prohibited from selling sex but can be, and are, raided for having unlicensed masseuses. However, private escorts and employees (i.e. dancers) at certain strip joints are free to offer sex for a fee right on the premises. The examples of the latter of which I am aware are Cheaters Gentlemen's Club and the nearby non-alcohol Balloons, both on Allens Avenue south of downtown Providence; both night clubs offer strip-tease and private rooms for sex. Refer to the Rhode Island entry on the World Sex Guide web site for verification and further information. Dick Kimball (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem

In January 2009, content was copied with minimal or no alterations into this article from one or more sources. For example, The source reads

In Paris, prostitutes took over a church and demanded their full rights as citizens, calling for the abolition of fines and, in its place, a non-punitive tax system that would provide them with the right to pension and welfare benefits like "every other French woman who is a mother." Furthermore, they pressed for the right to be nationalized as civil servants of sex. Indeed, challenging the notion that those who sold sex were deviant and pathological, they claimed that sexual commerce was a "job determined by the sexual needs of one part of society" -- the clients who always went unpunished.... The strike lasted seven days and ended when the police invaded the church, beat the women and terminated the church occupation in Lyon, France.

Text placed in the article reads:

In Paris prostitutes demanded their full rights as citizens and called for the introduction of a non-punitive tax system that would provide them with the right to pension and welfare benefits like “every other French woman”. They also demanded to be nationalised as civil servants of sex. The prostitutes challenged the notion that those who sold sex were deviant and claimed that sexual commerce was a “job determined by the sexual needs of one part of society” – the client who always went unpunished. The strike lasted seven days and ended with the police invading the churches.

I've bolded content that is precisely duplicated, even if condensed by the removal of some text. Unbolded text, in some cases, clearly closely paraphrases.

The editor who placed this content is currently blocked for copying material from books into other articles. I'm afraid that all of his edits to this article must be suspect. All content added by him may need to be removed, unless we are able to determine that the material is public domain, in which case it must be handled in accordance with Wikipedia:Plagiarism. I'm sure that there is quite a bit of content in here that is not suspect, but it will take some time to work out what content is safe, as the contributor in question is currently the primary editor of this article. If anybody wishes to help with this, the temporary space now linked to the article's front would be an ideal point. It seems that this version could be used as base for forward movement. Alternatively, we could simply look at each of his edits and remove content he added unless we have good reason to believe it is free of copyright concerns. Sorry for the mess. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Cleanup and Expansion

I too think that this article could use a cleanup and expansion in order to improve the quality. 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) 04:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Factual accuracy and neutrality in Nevada section

I have corrected that section - Las Vegas does NOT have legal brothels - all forms of prostitution are illegal in Clark County which contains Las Vegas and its metropolitan area; prostitution in Nevada is legal only in some rural counties, see Prostitution in Nevada. It appears that the person who initially wrote that section had little clue about the subject. The section is also horribly biased since it presents only the view of one side (the section is sourced to Ronald Weitzer - well known activist for liberalization of prostitution laws/pro sex workers' rights activist; and to a book by Brents,&Hausbeck) it completely ignores the other side (eg, people like Melissa Farley who have written extensively on the subject of prostitution in Nevada and allege serious abuses in those brothels). It also fails to recognize that most sex workers rights activists in the US oppose Nevada style regulations as they see them as oppressive and intrusive and prefer a more loose decriminalization approach.2A02:2F01:1059:F001:0:0:BC19:1BD8 (talk) 10:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I tagged the section. It should either be rewritten from a neutral POV, with claims and opinions presented as such and not as facts, and with both sides' views explained; or it should be removed.2A02:2F01:1059:F001:0:0:BC19:1BD8 (talk) 10:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback and correcting the information. I looked back at the article by Brents and Hausbeck and saw that I misread it. I also rewrote the section so that it is more neutral.

I included the opposing side of sex workers' rights in sections below. I thought that it would be better to separate the two sections so that the article could be more readable. Thanks again for looking over the article and I appreciate any further feedback and source recommendations. Lgriffin92 (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Further expansion

As of now, I think the current article focuses more on the arguments relating to the movement and does not give a good idea of the origin of the movement. So, in light of the feedback given from the reviewer about how to make this article better, I would like to expand this article more to include more information about the context that the sex workers' rights movement takes place within. There are a few sections that I would like to add such as a section about the history of the movement including some of the current legislation it is fighting for, as well as, some of its notable achievements. The movement also has set a side a few days that are celebratory and I think that would be something nice to include too. Within the advocacy section, I have sources that discuss some of the main advocates of the movement and opponents to the movement. Furthermore, human trafficking is something that is also brought up in discussion relating to sex workers' rights so I think it would be appropriate to discuss some of the issues that the movement hopes to address in relation to forced sex work. I am still looking for more scholarly sources especially about the celebratory days and advocates involved in the movement so if anyone knows of where I could find this information, I'd be elated if you told me. Also, please feel free to give me feedback on other ways to improve the article in general. Thanks a bunch! Lgriffin92 (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Under the "Employment" section, the United States sub-section could be expanded to include policy proposals such Measure B in Los Angeles (County of Los Angeles Safer Sex In the Adult Film Industry Act) and California's Prop 60 (required visibility of condoms in pornographic videos) and the controversies surrounding these measures and other steps taken to regulate sex work. Mcgalace (talk) 05:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)mcgalace

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sex workers' rights/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 15:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• After a first readthrough of the article, it appears to me that while this is a good start, this still has some significant work to do before meeting the Good Article criteria. There's some great stuff in here, including a good discussion of the prostitution legalization debate in the present day. The biggest problem is that the article is primarily focused on the US and Europe, while this is a worldwide issue. For example, the section called "Strip club employment issues" appears to discuss only the UK. The article should also give a historical overview of sex workers' rights, or the sex workers' rights movement--who coined the term "sex workers' rights"? Where are its primary advocates, and what have been the movement's successes and failures? What have sex workers' rights been defined to be by various groups? This is all a problem under criterion 3a.

I'd suggest revising to take a broader look at the subject both in terms of geography (including Africa, Asia, Latin America) and time (explaining the evolution of the concept, notable sex workers' rights movements in various countries). For now, unfortunately, I don't think this is ready to be listed as a good article. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments & Suggestions

Lgriffin92, your contributions to “Sex workers’ rights” have improved it greatly! The article consistently maintains a neutral point of view and is, overall, very informative.

I have just a few comments and advice for further edits:

• Because the lead section (the article opener) contains only two sentences, I would advise combining them into just one paragraph. Also, I feel that a citation may be necessary here.
• Perhaps it would be beneficial to add more blue links within the text, as some terms relevant to the content of the article have pages of their own—e.g. Feminists Fighting Pornography, Ronald Weitzer, etc.
• Section 2. History of the movement is neatly organized but as a timeline of history, I feel that more dates would be helpful to understand when exactly each respective school of thought emerged. Otherwise, the section seems to describe opposing views rather than an actual history.
• The subsections under 10. Role of international organizations should use title-style capitalization because they refer to proper nouns. For example, “World health organization” should be “World Health Organization”. This also applies to NSWP.
• The GA reviewer suggested expanding more on sex workers’ rights movements in a global context. I can see that you have begun this—continuing to build on this information more thoroughly would certainly improve the article further.
• I also advise adding more information to 7. Accomplishments. As a very brief section, it is somewhat vague and does not contribute much to the rest of the article. More detail here would be great.
• Finally, I think it may benefit the article to add more See also links that are relevant to the subject; you can also link “sex workers’ rights” from those pages as well to generate more traffic.

Excellent job so far! JoyceChou (talk) 04:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

After reviewing your article I have a few suggestions that you may find beneficial as you continue to edit your article. I would retitle the History of movement to maybe the History of the Movement just to clarify it is not about a transnational movement of sex workers. Additionally making a clear statement in the pornography debates that describes the relationship between sex work and rights would help make the subject of the debates clearer before you go into the specifics of each side of the argument. I would also get rid of the statement “on the other hand” in the liberal feminist section as it seems to colloquial for Wikipedia. Additionally in this section an explanation for this line “feminists believe that pornography is negatively affecting them when in actuality it is not” would help complete your argument. I think if you intend to keep the article divided into these subcategories more contradictory opinions against each argument will help you maintain neutrality. It is difficult at times seeing if one argument is inherently contradictory to the other especially in the criminalization and legalization case. I also suggest maybe renaming the accomplishments section. It is not clear what exactly is being accomplished and because this is neutral it is not clear what accomplishments are made for what side of the debate. Another suggestion would be to introduce some of the feminists and individuals you are citing and where their research is coming from. This will help verify your claims and substantiate your argument. Overall I think you have a lot of great information and present the subject well and in a neutral way. I think expanding on some of the shorter sections will be really beneficial in fleshing out your argument.

Risadieken (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Joyce and Marisa! Thank you for looking at the page and offering suggestions on how to improve the article. I am trying to make the entire article as informative and reader-friendly as I can so I will definitely take these into consideration when trying to reorganize and improve the page in order to make sure that the page is set up as well as it can be. Thanks again! Lgriffin92 (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I really enjoyed reading the article. I felt the section on Strip club employee issues was interesting to read about in the UK, I was wondering if you also have more information on the American strip club rules, and maybe you could add info about that to the article. The article as a whole was good and touched on many sex worker categories. I feel that you did well in terms of references and research. Also I would be interested to hear more about the celebratory days that go on around the world. They are very interesting to hear about. Awesome job! Think about adding a little more, and good luck on the article. HannahSims (talk) 05:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Under "Pornography Debates", it mention's that Carol Leigh coined the phrase "sex worker" in the early 1980s while the wikipedia article it links to states she coined the term in the late 1970s. I suggest including both eras (late 1970s to early 1980s) to relieve the discrepancy between articles. Mcgalace (talk) 05:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)mcgalace

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sex workers' rights/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 22:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC) Yipes! You've waited quite a while for this one to be reviewed Lgriffin92. I'll give it a go. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose isn't bad, but it needs to be neatened and clarified to meet Wikipedia standards.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lede section does not sufficiently summarise the rest of the article.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Some of these references are not appropriate, such as those in the "Discrimination and stigmatization" section. In many other cases books or articles are used as references without page numbers. Other sentences and sections simply aren't referenced.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	See above.
	2c. it contains no original research.	See above.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	This article fails to provide a global perspective.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	This article carries a strong U.S.-centric bias throughout.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	I'm afraid that while there's some good stuff here, a lot more work is needed before this can achieve GA status. Don't be discouraged however, and keep on contributing! Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)