Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Legobot (talk | contribs) at 08:00, 18 February 2015 (Removing expired RFC template.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
This template does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Removing North Preston's Finest
I have removed the link to North Preston's Finest. I think including a street gang in an otherwise serious matter is not necessary. In it's placed I have used http://www.pivotlegal.org/ Pivot Legal Society who were instrumental in the recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions in relation to Bedford vs. Canada as seen in this video.31jetjet (talk) 03:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)31jetjet
Matters involving gangs are not less serious than matters that do not involve gangs. North Preston's Finest is a Canadian gang that is very involved in prostitution in Canada. I see no reason that the link should be omitted from this navbox. Neelix (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
We are talking about a serious matter here. Including a gang of Nova Scotian Pimps as being "Pro-prostitution" is trivializing the issue. They are into sex trafficking, drug trafficking, robbery and homicide. I have read your user page, Neelix, is is quite obvious which side of the issue you are on. Good job on Tara Teng and Natashe Falles pages. NPF Removed. 31jetjet (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)31jetjet
Just an afterthought(s).
1. What recent contributions has NPF made for the legalization/decriminalization of prostitution in Canada?
2. Who are their main organizers and what experience/insight do they contribute to the legalization/decriminalization of prostitution in Canada?
Please keep comments to the template rather than editors. I don't see how any of the questions you mention are relevant. NPF has an article and the organization is strongly related to prostitution in Canada, which is the subject of this template. That is enough to justify having the link in the navbox. Neelix (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
changing "Anti-prostitution" and "pro-prostitution" headers?
Should the organization subsections be renamed to something more neutral and accurate, such as "pro-legalization" and "pro-prohibition"? Haminoon (talk) 07:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose given the current context. Being pro- or anti-prostitution doesn't imply being pro- or anti-legalization, one way or the other. For several of the listed organizations it's not all that clear what the organization's stance is on the criminality of prostitution, or even if they do take a stance one way or the other. For example, Deborah's Gate (listed under anti-prostitution) is an organization which supports sex workers who wish to exit the industry, but that doesn't necessarily imply that they support prohibition of prostitution. They might, or they might not, but they can do their work either way. We're putting them into a category which might not apply to them. I actually think the template would be better off (and more neutral) if the "pro-" and "anti-" subheaders were removed altogether, and organizations simply listed without further categorization. Ivanvector (talk) 04:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
In fact the current format has organizations categorized based on their stance on human trafficking, which is very strongly related to but still distinct from prostitution - not all prostitution is a result of trafficking. It's possible to be pro-prostitution and also anti-trafficking, such as favouring legal status and social benefits extended to sex workers but opposing forced prostitution and sexual slavery. The template should be clear on what it's categorizing. Ivanvector (talk) 04:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Rename and just follow the cites. Use an organizations self-category label, like abortion has "pro-choice" and "pro-life", if they world has them, so you've got the same terms the world uses. If there are more than two sides or have no particular labels then that is what you portray instead. I'll point out that principles of WP:TRUTH or WP:VERIFIABILITY are also functionally helpful because using the same label as outside does makes it easier for folks to find the article and for editors to find and convey cite material. Markbassett (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Do you have any suggestions to replace them? I can't find any labels that would bring together such disparate groups. Its a bit more complex then "pro-choice" and "pro-life". Would you be happy with Ivan's suggestion above of leaving the organizations without further categorization? Haminoon (talk) 12:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - Personally I think it's better as it is, Plus it just makes more sense IMHO, Not really seeing any advantages to renaming them.... –Davey201005:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Support: What exactly does "pro-prostitution" even mean? That the person likes to procure the services of prostitutes? That they number prostitutes among their friends? Ditto anti-prostitution. As another commenter pointed out, this is like "pro-life" and "pro-choice" but those are troublesome terms for similar reasons. It is entirely possible to consider prostitution a blight on women and society and yet still believe it should be legal if people want to do it. I'd say the "pro-legalization" and "pro-prohibition" (hmm -- should that just be "pro-hibition") are clearer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:F340:A500:163:4DF7:350:C931 (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
But again, there is no reason to believe that every listed organization takes a stance on that. I have to assume for example that North Preston's Finest would continue to operate whether prostitution was legal or not. Ivanvector (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose, merge, and rename – It's not clear that the members of the groups are "pro-legalization" and "pro-prohibition." I would favour merging the two categories under the heading "Interest groups" and (possibly) moving North Preston's Finest to the "Other" section, depending on if it can be decided that they are an interest group. I would say no myself. DiscantX07:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I am happy with this and it appears Ivanvector is as well. Since others have noted problems with the status quo, are we reaching consensus on this? Haminoon (talk) 09:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
