Jump to content

Talk:Prostitution law

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 20 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jeremiah Hassel.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merger and merged talk pages

[edit]

Following comments at both talk pages and the NPOV noticeboard, I have Been Bold and merged these two pages. They both cover prostitution and the law, and a number of users comment they may be POV forks (or POV articles) not just content forks.

The relevant talk pages are below.

The articles clearly need massive work, rewriting, balancing, better coverage, citing from good sources and so on. Hopefully this will help. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Talk:Legality of prostitution:

== Proposal - Merge Regulated prostitution and Legality of prostitution ==

The topics significantly overlap and belong in the same article, which overall, should cover the broad categories of legal approaches to prostitution (e.g., full criminalization, criminalization of purchase only, full decriminalization, and full legalization (including varieties of legalization models)) and the debates behind it. I will merge these articles in a month or two of no objections are raised. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 20:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

== "Debate over legalization" section ==

I have moved this content from Prostitution_in_the_United_States #Legal_status to this article, since content concerning the larger legalization debate should not be buried in a country-specific article. I see that User:123username has some disagreement over this and wants in the Regulated prostitution article for reasons unclear to me. In any event, that's an article that should be merged into this one, and why what are so far arguments for criminalization specifically need to be in article on regulated prostitution strikes me as editorializing. The editor also proposes merging it into Prostitution (criminology) another POV fork, and one that's less specifically about the legal situation of prostitution. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section is named "debate", yet there is no actual debate. It just lists arguments that one side of the debate has. It should either be renamed to "arguments against legality" or have pro-legality arguments added. --AlekNovy (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Nevermind, I didn't notice it was already tagged as "neutrality disputed" for that section specifically.[reply]

==On who Barbara Sullivan is==

Here is a link: [1]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 123username (talk • contribs) 06:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also will acknowledge that Barbara Sullivan is an academic who has published on the ethical aspects of prostitution in peer-reviewed journals. So in that regard, using her as a source for a particular view on prostitution is valid. However, what is not valid, and I have been changing in the articles that state this, is sourcing Barbara Sullivan to support the idea that there's an "academic consensus" that prostitution is inherently non-consensual. That is an offhand comment by one academic in one paper, backed neither by references on Sullivan's part, nor any kind of survey of other academics on her part. As such, her statement is clearly her own opinion. There are numerous other works, on both sides of the issue, I might add, that acknowledge that there's a debate around prostitution and other forms of sex work. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
==Muslims come first?==

The first list of countries lists Muslim countries first, and then other countries as simply non-Muslim, this article is not about the Muslim world, why is it being written as if it is?

Also note that in Iran temporary marriages are legal and children as young as 13 are being sold out to men. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6714885.stm http://www.iol.co.za/?click_id=3&art_id=qw1024837201529B265&set_id=1 Gigith (talk) 03:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so you say it makes it easier to read, maybe we should change the country list to "Illegal in most Muslim countries. Legal in a lot of Non-Muslim countries", that would be shorter and help to address the point of this article, which seems to be to make sure people know that Muslim countries don't allow prostitution, except when they sometimes do. List them all equally or don't list them at all. Gigith (talk) 03:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I say use the same pattern as Age of consent and its breakout articles do. The main article covers the topic, and there are a number of articles that then cover the laws in various countries, organized in by continent. I would say, start out with an article Prostitution laws by country to move this rather lengthy section into, then split those into "Prostitution laws in X" as the article is fleshed out. I will also note that the age of consent articles do not have any special section for Muslim-majority countries.
I also do not think that when the types of legal regimes surrounding prostitution are listed in this article, that we then need to add a list of every single country with that type of law. Rather, broadly discuss the types of prostitution law found around the world and then give notable examples of each. A few sentences on prostitution in Sharia law and in Muslim-majority countries in the appropriate section should be sufficient to cover that topic. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 07:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think all the countries with a particular legal approach to prostitution should be listed out in full. If not here, then in a new Prostitution laws by country article. If people put in generalisations, they'll end up joining up dots that aren't necessarily there and giving a skewed view on things.
Also, for Gigith:low marriageable age and Nikah mut‘ah are not the same as prostitution so those things are not really relevant. Munci (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Put simply I don't think "Iran doesn't have any gays" and "Muslim countries don't tolerate prostitution" isn't neutral, it generalizes the issue at hand in an attempt to show the Muslim world as having a consensus about issues where there isn't always such a consensus, Wikipedia isn't the place to try to affect public opinion nor try to shine a good light on groups where opinions and laws vary.
Yes, most Muslim countries have it banned, however so do most Christian countries, but they're not listed that way, and so neither should Muslim countries.
But no, I never wanted it listed as prostitution, but many Sunnis see it as prostitution, and Wikipedia shouldn't be picking sides, so that only adds to my point that it does vary a lot in the Muslim world, and so it shouldn't be so generalized. Gigith (talk) 10:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and am I the only one who sees something deeply wrong with listing all countries that aren't Muslim majority as simply "Non-Muslim" when the article has nothing more to do with the Muslim world than the Non-Muslim world? How would you like it if Muslim countries were listed as "Non-Buddhist countries"? Does that sound fine to you? Gigith (talk) 10:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Put like that, I agree with you Gigith. I had no idea Sunnis saw nikah mut‘ah as prostitution. Munci (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

== Neutrality ==

I only see arguments against legalising prostitution in this article. I suspect the writer had a certain interest to write it so... Siúnrá (talk) 12:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And indeed that's why that section bears an NPOV tag. This article was one of the many POV content forks that was spun off of the main article Prostitution. While the subjects are themselves legitimate, the way the author went about breaking out articles like this one from the main one so that he or she could write it solely according to their point of view was certainly not. This issue is discussed over at Talk:Prostitution#RfC:_Views_on_prostitution_and_content_forking. This article is on my list of articles to work on, but if you want to have a hand at balancing this thing out, please, have at it. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Talk:Prostitution (criminology):

I thought this section was completely neutral. The author never offered their own opinion, but referenced the opinions of radical feminists, and of supporters of prostitution. It would be ignorant and superficial to discuss prostitution without including a feminist view. To leave out the opinions of those who do not see prostitution as a fair and equal exchange would make this discussion biased towards pro-prostitution advocates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.67.113.99 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 27 August 2008
The problem is that this section puts forward a feminist view on prostitution as the feminist view on prostitution, nor does it off the views of those who are critical of that particular view. WP:NPOV and WP:CONTROVERSY are quite clear on this – if a topic is controversial or disputed, Wikipedia must summarize all notable points of view on a topic, without biasing one view as the "right" one. This section clearly falls short of this rule.
I also tagged the "Victims" section, as its title and description of the Swedish system show it to clearly lean toward advocacy of the "Swedish model". Iamcuriousblue (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed redundant content which can be found in the articles which I listed at the See also section and in the main prostitution article. Please read those articles first, and if you still want to revert my change, explain why. 86.121.10.107 (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before removing large sections of the article, I believe we need a little more agreement with several editors regarding the removal of content. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I removed those sections again, now let's wait and see what the other editors say. If anybody believes they sholud stay, please explain exactly WHY you believe so. Fastily, please don't revert my change again without explainig why you think these scetions belong in this article. I trully belive they are redundant and out of place here. If you think differenly, please explain why. 86.121.10.107 (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's not the way it works. You don't just state you're going to remove something on the Talk page (after having deleted it three times first), then just go and do it. You wait to see if you have consensus for the removals. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moving this page

This page should be renamed "Research on prostitution" or "Prostitution research". The current title does not reflect the content of the article in the best way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skydeepblue (talk • contribs) 06:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

== NPOV ==

The long-standing POV problems that I brought up last year are still problems in this article, and if anything have gotten worse. To say this article is slanted toward the "prostitution abolitionist" position is to put it too mildly. This article gives only the anti-prostitution position position. This article is severely biased and represents a POV fork from the original Prostitution article. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

== What is this article supposed to be about? ==

The more I look at this article the less I understand just what the subject is and why it was split off from Prostitution. The severe NPOV problems of this article seem to make it merely a POV fork. The problem is, its kind of difficult to rewrite the article when its pretty unclear what sets this article apart from the larger "Prostitution" article. This needs clarification so that the article can be edited to a clear topic as well as NPOV. Alternately, the article simply needs to be dropped, with salvageable parts of it moved to other articles. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 02:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merged - raw and crude for now. Intro cleaned up, "multiple issues" tags applied,and a couple of missing sections added. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the worst articles on Wikipedia. 64.134.197.129 (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV issues with newly added material

[edit]

There are strong NPOV issues with the material imported over from Abolition of Prostitution, and simply moving them from one article to the other has not lessened these problems. It presents contested studies as fact, and leads off the paragraph as "studies have shown". It also presents the work of Melissa Farley as a "representative study". Furthermore, it even more strongly unbalances the article overall by presenting the prohibitionist argument as the one with research backing, but not the pro-legalization one. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to revert it or edit it. I'm still not sure if the abolitionist stuff should be here, but rather in a separate article. I may have a go at writing one this afternoon. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've started work on a page in user space: User:Tom Morris/Attitudes to Prostitution. The idea is to come up with an article that serves as an alternative to Feminist attitudes to prostitution (to include non-feminist attitudes), as well as merge in good bits from Abolition of Prostitution. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If all the evangelists and Marxists here don't quit presenting Melissa Farley's studies as representative, I'll start doing the same with Kinsey's. Or better yet, I'll bring Freud into this! Haha, it would be a sight to see them trying to sort it all out. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 08:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abolition of Prostitution merger

[edit]

So the consensus has been to merge the "Abolition of Prostitution" article into this one. Good enough, but the fact that much of the material has severe problems with WP:NPOV and WP:SOAPBOX remains. The question is whether to edit before or after merging. I thing paring it down to usable content before moving it is probably best. I'll have at it over the next few days. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say delete the entire "Abolition of Prostitution" article and start all over. Whoever wrote that article needs to start their own blog, not edit on wikipedia. What is this- propaganda? 175.100.127.66 (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing to merge, really, as it's all POV. The only real notable aspect of the abolitionist viewpoint is the criticism it has received from mainstream feminists and the controversies it has created due to its sloppy research and made up statistics. To present it without balance is undue weight. TJ Black (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the redirect is being blocked by Cindamuse who's even gone so far as to call it "vandalism". I've dealt with them before, they're a major POV pusher. I'd don't want to get into an edit war situation, so I'm not sure what to do. This editor is clearly acting in violation of the community consensus that Abolition of Prostitution in its current state not an appropriate article for wikipedia. Can anyone help out? TJ Black (talk) 23:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Merging is kind of a slow process, as is everything on Wikipedia since the number of active editors has dropped. But the consensus is to merge the *usable* parts of the article, which is not most of it. That can be done from the archived version. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 07:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of the law

[edit]

This article lacks any sense of the historic legal status, of the development of current laws over centuries. Binksternet (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"General section"

[edit]

Can someone please explain to me why my edit from yesterday was deleted? And further, why is this section presenting an almost entirely pro- abolition argument with no more than a single line of the against abolition argument? 175.100.127.66 (talk) 08:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to wikipedia. The editor who removed your addition is one of the worst anti-prostitution POV pushers around. Still, it's best to have a cite, maybe a quote attributing the belief that legal prostitution is beneficial to a well-known advocate. Thanks! TJ Black (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having a cite does not help. Neither does removing the one pro-prostitution argument which is an unsourced strawman argument. Of course it there is no source for it as no pro-prostitution advocate would ever claim that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.126.90.240 (talk) 01:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with neutrality

[edit]

The dominant problem with this page is that biased editors are removing all efforts to make this article even slightly more neutral. Claims by anti-prostitution activists are stated as fact, and even edits clarifying that those statements are claims is undone with "biased" as motivation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.126.90.240 (talk) 01:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You removed information about Sweden making it illegal to be a john, followed by two other countries. You replaced balanced information with only anti-prostitution text. You violated WP:NPOV. Binksternet (talk) 02:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why do that information belong in General? It already has its own section. Several nations also legalized prostitution, why not mention that? What balanced information text did I replace. I removed some anti-prostitution text that was unsourced. I also did other changes such as clearifying that the anti-prostitution claims is not facts, How is any of the changes NPOW? 188.126.90.240 (talk) 04:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've put in an "unbalanced" tag on the "General" section, in recognition of how severely weighted this section is toward anti-prostitution arguments, and how poorly so-called "pro-prostitution" arguments are represented. I have also removed the direct quotes claiming the majority of academic research supports the victimization model. Those statements are simply somebody's opinion and little more, not based on any systematic review of the literature on the subject. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 17:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image description

[edit]

I don't think "Prostitution legal, but not regulated; brothels are illegal;" is the best description, the problem is that "legal" in general implies that there is a specific law to explicitly allow the activity, i think "prostitution not specifically prohibited by any law" or "prostitution not on offense/not a crime" might be better?

There's also a problem with 'legal' vs 'illegal' prostitution, prostitution is 'legally permitted' can mean anything from a situation where there is no law prohibiting the act of exchanging sex for money but virtually anything connected to prostitution such as soliciting in public places, advertising, owing brothels, being found in a brothel, facilitating the prostitution of another, deriving financial gain from the prostitution of another etc is illegal (see Canada for an example) to a situation where virtually all forms of prostitution are permitted (ie, New Zealand which allows everything: street prostitution, brothels, escorts, apartment prostitution, advertising etc). A difference should clearly be made between "regulated" (a law which explicitly allows an activity) and "decriminalized" (an activity is 'legal' simply because there is no law to prohibit it), but this is not enough: for instance Latvia has "regulated" prostitution - the prostitutes must register and undergo mandatory health checks, but they must work independently - brothels and other forms of organized prostitution are not permitted in that country: so to lump in Latvia with a country such as Netherlands and put them in the same 'category' can be quite misleading. As a matter of fact, is a map really necessary? Because the laws surrounding prostitution are very complex and difficult to be divided into strict 'categories'? Any suggestions?

123username (talk) 11:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original description of the image for the color blue is "Prostitution (the exchange of sex for money) is legal, but organized activities such as brothels and pimping are illegal; prostitution is not regulated" but it has been changed by several editors. 123username (talk) 11:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current description of the image for the color blue is now different from the original one, provided by the person who created the map. This description has been changed several times by several editors. 123username (talk) 11:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the map sure isn't right about my own country...
In Norway prostitution is legal (for the prostitute, but it's unregulated I think) but buying the service, earning money on it from someone else, running a brothel or advertising for it is illegal as far as I can tell... Luredreier (talk) 23:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like these issues have since been fixed. -- Beland (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading image

[edit]

Shouldn't File:Prostitution in North America.png be changed to indicate that prostitution is legal in parts of Nevada? Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 21:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has since been fixed. -- Beland (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-prostitution POV

[edit]

I think the whole article, as it is today, has an anti-prostitution POV based on the unholy alliance between Evangelical Christian and Radical feminist/Marxist-feminist arguments against the practice, regarding all prostitution as involuntary human trafficking...--201.81.227.128 (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources claiming widespread voluntary prostitution? If so, feel free to contribute! Aaker (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cote d'Ivoire

[edit]

It is listed as both legal and regulated and legal but unregulated. Which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.237.34 (talk) 04:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More neutral presentation - The four main points of view

[edit]
Neo-abolitionism in light blue : Prostitution legal but organized activities (proxenetism) and buying sex are illegal.
Abolitionism in dark blue : Prostitution legal but organized activities (proxenetism) are illegal.
Regulationism in green : Prostitution legal and organized activities (proxenetism and brothels) are legal.
Prohibitionism in red : Prostitution illegal.

Map of prostitution laws in Europe. These four categories reflect the different points of view on prostitution translated in law (the four terms are french translation, I don't know if they exist about prostitution in English) :

  • The neo-abolitionists (light blue on the map) argue that prostitution is a sexual act forced by financial necessity. They consider that a forced sexual act by financial necessity is still a forced sexual act. For them, there is no difference if the pressures is physical, moral or financial. According to them a forced sexual act is always a form of rape. The prostitute is seen as a victim. They allow prostitution but penalize clients.
  • The abolitionists (dark blue on the map) argue that prostitution is an individual freedom. For them it's a choice and no a necessity, prostitution shouldn't be forced by a pimp. They allow prostitution and don't penalize clients. They prohibit pimping which is for them to force the prostitute to have sex with somebody with a link of authority.
  • The regulationists (green on the map) argue that prostitution is an individual freedom. They consider prostitution as a job like any other which can be practiced with a link of authority (Pimping). They allow prostitution, pimping and brothels.
  • The prohibitionists (red on the map) consider that prostitution is morally wrong and prohibit it. It is often a religious motivation.

--Monsieur Fou (talk) 08:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the above, both neo-abolitionism and abolitionism have the exact same description: "Prostitution legal but organized activities (proxenetism) and buying sex are illegal." My suggestion is to change neo-abolition to: "Selling sex is legal, but buying sex is illegal, and businesses are illegal." For abolitionism: "Selling sex is legal, and buying sex is legal, but businesses are illegal." PhilLiberty (talk)
This is an old map and legend. The current legends for Abolitionism & Neo-abolitionism are:
  • Abolitionism - prostitution is legal, but organized activities such as brothels and pimping are illegal; prostitution is not regulated
  • Neo-abolitionism - illegal to buy sex and for 3rd party involvement, legal to sell sex
--John B123 (talk) 20:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Canada

[edit]

Canada is blue in one map and red in another. Last I checked, it should be blue in both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.204.231 (talk) 12:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Prostitution by country

[edit]

User:2A02:2F0A:508F:FFFF:0:0:567F:92FF suggested to merge Prostitution law and Prostitution by country in 2015-05-09T11:37:24 with no suggestion reason.

I changed Template:Merge toTemplate:MergeTo and Template:MergeFrom in 2015-07-12T10:58:00‎.
(Suggestion reason) These two articles handle similar contents. I point out the evidence that no other linguistic wikipedia have two articles like this. NiceDay (talk) 11:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:both seem to be substantial pages, either well-referenced or well-linked and with distinct purposes. Just as we have a page for crime and criminal law, so too can we have pages for prostitution and prostitution law. The absence of a similar structure on other Wikis does not mean determine the structure here, on the grounds that prostitution might be more notable in .en ... Klbrain (talk) 00:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing given no support since 2015 and an unanswered objection. Klbrain (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New vs old map

[edit]

Someone by the name of User:Runningfridgesrule changed the colors on the map. I think the old map was better; I can distinguish between the colors more easily on the old map.

I don't buy the rationale he gave for changing the colors:

"The map's colors has been altered compared to File:Prostitution laws of the world.PNG because the colors of that map suggested that putting in place restrictions is a negative thing, and that "regulated", non-restricted prostition laws are better."

I never inferred that with the old map.

"Evidence has shown the oppositite however, see [2], so this map attempts to put everything in a more balanced perspective."

This remark is an NPOV breach, because even if the article were true, whether that makes prostitution or its regulation good or bad is still subjective.

147.69.139.119 (talk) 05:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Africa is missing

[edit]

Africa is missing from the continent-by-continent infographics in the right column of the article. 178.39.255.25 (talk) 11:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Prostitution law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Prostitution law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Prostitution law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Edward Island

[edit]

According to the current map, prostitution is illegal in Canada everywhere except PEI. Is this intentional, or was it accidentally left blue when Canada was shifted to red? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.161.143.149 (talk) 05:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Prostitution law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Status of Canada and Iceland

[edit]

As I checked the web, in Canada[1] [2], like France and Sweden, buying sex is illegal, yet selling is legal. so it should be orange (or amber). the same thing applies to Iceland, in fact it's irony that Iceland is orange in the Europe map, but was red in North America map. I fixed the maps, but I don't have access to the page to fix the other errors. Please fix it.

References: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack72 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/what-is-and-is-not-legal-under-canadas-new-200231637.html
  2. ^ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadas-new-prostitution-laws-everything-you-need-to-know/article19610318/

Update of reference URL

[edit]

The reference for the Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others is broken. Instead of linking to the Internet Archive, it could be updated to the current official URL: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/TrafficInPersons.aspx —MarioGom (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Prostitution law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Legal status of psilocybin mushrooms which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 June 2017

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: TBD. Redundant. See Talk:Legal_status_of_psilocybin_mushrooms#Requested_move_8_June_2017 В²C ☎ 18:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Prostitution law → Legality of prostitution – Several different formats exist for the titles of articles regarding the legality of a particular thing. I believe that all of these should be consistent with each other and that that format should be "Legality of X" (instead of "Legal status of X, Laws regarding X, etc.) Others have noted that "legality" is a more common term when referring to whether something is legal or illegal than "legal status". Michipedian (talk) 02:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop. Michipedian, you need to make ONE multi-move proposal. Having dozens of similar individual proposals is a huge waste of time for everyone involved. --В²C ☎ 21:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that was the correct way of submitting multiple move requests. Michipedian (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Michipedian, see Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_multiple_page_moves. --В²C ☎ 22:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Someone had told me that was the right way to do it once. That obviously wasn't correct. Anyway, what do you want me to do about it now? Michipedian (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest reverting all the individual ones to which no one has responded yet. If someone has already responded (my response here doesn't count - go ahead and revert it), then it's probably best to leave it. Then combine them into batches, or maybe wait and see what comes out of the one multi move you have going. Don't take it personally. I commend you for trying to find a good consistent approach. But "legality" might not be the best choice. Personally, I like "Prostitution law" here, and think all the rest should be renamed accordingly. --В²C ☎ 05:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2018

[edit]
51.174.6.1 (talk) 13:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copypaste of entire article removed

 Not done - As it clearly states in the instructions to submit an edit request:-
"Please don't copy the entire article into the request. Only copy the part you're changing. If you copy the entire article into the request ... another editor may remove your entire request."
This is not a "spot the difference competition" If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple issues

[edit]

There are tags for the whole article for update, unbalanced globalize. These date from 2010 - 2013. In the "Views of prohibitionists" section there is also a disputed tag from 2011.

There have been many, many edits and updates in the 5+ years these tags were added. Are they still valid or can they be removed? John B123 (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Table in 'Legislation Models'

[edit]

I think the table in the 'Legislation Models' added by PhilLiberty is a good idea. However a few points:

  • There is no separate 'Free Market model, that is effectivly 'Decriminalization'
  • Whilst Buyer Solicition is often illegal in Abolitionism, there are countries using this model where it is not
  • In Decriminalization countries all the activities in the table are legal
  • Not all countries have the concept of misdemeanor/felony, some have administrative offense/criminal offense, others just have criminal offense. Using misdemeanor and crime describing illegality isn't totally accurate.

I've ammended the table appropriately. --John B123 (talk) 21:02, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Israel has adopted the Swedish model of prostitution law

[edit]

This should be reflected in the map. 77.124.17.204 (talk) 08:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The new Israeli law doesn't come into force until May 2020. As the map reflects the current situation it would be premature to update it now. --John B123 (talk) 15:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another category (legal de iure, illegal de facto)

[edit]

There should be another category: prostitution is legal only in regulated brothels, but currently there are 0 registered brothels, so prostitution is illegal de facto. Jurisdictions that would apply:

  • Lebanon
  • Taiwan
  • Some subdivisions (3 counties in Nevada)

Borysk5 (talk) 09:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update Belgium section - sex work has been decriminalized since 1 June 2022

[edit]

Since 1 June 2022, sex work has been decriminalized in Belgium. Please update this wikipage accordingly. Reference: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Prostitution_in_Belgium https://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/cgi_loi/change_lg.pl?language=nl&la=N&cn=2022032101&table_name=wet

Preciouseurope (talk) 08:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Preciouseurope, done. Thank you for bringing this to attention. All the best. Helper201 (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the world map should be updated to reflect this. Desmond Ravenstone (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2023

[edit]

Add a Timeline Magruz (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Magruz: that's a bit too much work for an edit request! if you get the time to make one yourself, you can post it on the talk page and ask for it to be added in a new request :-) In any case, are you talking about a timeline of prostitution law in a specific country? An international timeline would become unwieldy. small jars tc 17:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Crime and Media

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Catluver777 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: LilMuffin7, Exratherr.

— Assignment last updated by Dmaccartney (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prostitution_law&oldid=1209887269"