Talk:List of red-light districts

This article was nominated for deletion on 15 February 2020. The result of the discussion was keep.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Sexology and sexuality: Sex work Low‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Sex work task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 January 2021 and 16 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sidney Gordon. Peer reviewers: Vzhan, Pelton98.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

get some proof for these allegations

Not a single one of these alleged red-light districts is sourced. It is original research for an article to declare that Van Buren Street in Pheonix, Arizona is a place of prostitution, without any proof to back up this wild claim. The Van Buren street entry is redlinked, so where did the person who put it there get this information? People who live there or own property on this street probably do not appreciate this unsubstantiated claim. There is absolutely nothing preventing goofballs from adding any kind of false junk information to this article. Some of these entries seem to be original research from people who thought to themselves, "hey, I saw a girl who looked like a hooker on such-and-such street, I think I'll add it to Wikipedia". wikipediatrix 15:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do a Google search. And please give details. Which entries "seem to be original research from people who thought to themselves, "hey, I saw a girl who looked like a hooker on such-and-such street, I think I'll add it to Wikipedia""? What is your basis for these assertions? Many of these (probably the majority) are famous red-light districts and are listed as such in numerous perfectly respectable guidebooks (usually as places to avoid). -- Necrothesp 15:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude. NONE OF THESE ENTRIES HAVE SOURCES, so why are you even arguing with me? You should have no problem getting some sources if they're as famous as you claim. wikipediatrix 16:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a list. Its purpose is merely to link to other articles. Many of the links already lead to articles. It is there that the sourcing should be done. There are 138 districts listed; of these, 70 are blue links. It should be the articles you're aiming your displeasure at if they're not sourced, not the list. As I've said before, you'll find most lists on Wikipedia aren't sourced, since it's difficult to source every entry on a list. Yet you're aiming at this one only. Why?

Oh, and before you accuse me of improperly removing tags, try reading the rules you love to quote, which quite clearly state "If anyone, including the article's creator, removes Template:Prod from an article for any reason, do not put it back"! Seems quite clear to me. If you want to propose it for deletion under AfD then do so, but don't try deletion by underhand methods. Since the deletion was clearly not uncontroversial, this tag should never have been inserted in the first place. Again, according to the rules. -- Necrothesp 16:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I did not place the tag originally, someone else did. Secondly, nominating the article for AfD is not the proper action to take when one wants an article to be properly sourced. And yes, lists do have to be sourced, especially with controversial subjects such as this. See List of HIV-positive people for example. Just because there are lots of lists are aren't sourced doesn't mean they're not supposed to be. Give me time and I'll work on those too. wikipediatrix 19:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you did place the original tag, but you did restore it after I had deleted it legitimately, accusing me of removing it improperly. You therefore presumably want the article deleted, or you would not have done so, thereby contravening policy yourself and yet having the audacity to accuse me of doing so! There seem to be certain flaws in your logic here. Back to lists, you have not answered my point that a list is just that, a list. Why does every entry on a list have to be sourced? They just point to other articles. That's their sole function. If the article is not sourced, then that's a different matter. Over 50% of the list entries point to extant articles, yet you seem to be suggesting that a large number of them are original research. "Not a single one of these alleged red-light districts is sourced", you say. But the articles are, and that's what's important, not the list itself. I fail to see why you are demanding that the list itself is sourced. Again, this is illogical. Wikipedia is a unified whole, not a collection of separate entities. And deleting the whole section, as you did in the source article, just because some of the list items are redlinked (and therefore unsourced) is ridiculous. What about the bluelinked items that lead to sourced articles? -- Necrothesp 20:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The articles, in many cases, are not sourced, Svay Pak for example. Anyway, each page has to stand on its own. Every entry in the list needs to include a citation to a reliable source that refers to it as a red-light district. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not see the need to source items on a list, particularly if they are sourced in the detailed articles. However, I have no objection to people doing it if they so desire. What I do object to is the arrogant deletion of other people's work as has been done by Wikipediatrix to this list (twice) in its previous incarnation and proposed by her and another editor (against policy) in this incarnation. -- Necrothesp 22:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly, Wikipedia:Verifiability says

Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

There is not an exception for lists. Remember, nothing is ever lost; it's all avaliable as an older version in the edit history. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stick to my opinion about lists and the articles they link to - if the source is in the article then that information is already sourced on Wikipedia and does not require another reference. And I don't think your point about nothing being lost is really relevant; it has still been removed, whether technically available or not. It is also normal to tag an article asking for sources, not to just cut a large chunk of text or tag an article for deletion when it does not meet the criteria for that tag (in fact, the policy you quote says as much). It's all about good manners and not deleting other people's work unless it's blatantly unencyclopaedic or rubbish. I happen to feel much more strongly about that than I do about sourcing every little piece of information, particularly when much of that information can be readily confirmed with a brief internet search. -- Necrothesp 23:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy is not about your opinion. I am removing all redlinked entries for now and may remove many more later. Feel free to take this to an RFC if you wish. wikipediatrix 15:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is it about yours. Wikipedia policy does not support your opinion, although you appear to think it does. It merely says articles should be sourced. Articles which are sourced elsewhere on Wikipedia are still sourced. I despair of people who favour deletion over addition of content and seem to enjoy such deletion, but I frankly have more interesting things to do than continue to argue with you. -- Necrothesp 17:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, take it to an RFC and see how far you get with it if you don't believe me. wikipediatrix 18:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've left some redlinked entries in the list, why is that? Either remove them all or restore them all. Or find sources.

No citations should be on this page, they should all be in the individual articles. If you cant seem to find a citation, then bring your camera next time. Just because a citation is missing is no reason to delete an well developed article; I really dont know what you people seem to expect, most red light districts dont have websites that can be sourced. --AlexOv Shaolin 00:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Had another incidence of someone removing "unsourced" links. I understand the desire for references, but I still think it's misguided. For most of these places they are well known to be red light districts, and if you follow the link to the main article it's usually right there in the first sentence. The desire to remove these entries is, I suspect, part of some righteous crusade. Kenhullett (talk) 14:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is crazy. The first line of the wikipedia article on Reeperbahn says it's a red light district. It's in Category:Red-light districts. But we can't list it here without a cite? What kind of cite do you want? A sworn statement by the mayor of Hamburg saying yes, there are prostitutes on the Reeperbahn? I thought wikipedia was about providing factual information, not obscuring the facts because it offends some people's sensibilities.Kenhullett (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping by

I found this article because it linked to Rose Street which I created.

However, I think it is unmaintable. Almost every city of a few hundred thousand, and usually not under a particularly despotic regime has one. There must be hundreds and hundreds of such places around the world. --MacRusgail 20:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's never likely to be complete, but that's not a reason not to have it. -- Necrothesp 23:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, it's never likely to be complete, that's not my argument. My argument is that there are so many of them that the list is unmaintainable, particularly when you factor in the many defunct ones which would presumably include places like Pompeii and Ephesus. It could run into thousands, and thus be so long as to be unusable --MacRusgail 15:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it be unusable? It's structured, ergo it's usable. -- Necrothesp 17:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(lots of unintentional innuendo here!) It would be too long, and has two problems in, a) its vastness, and b) the speed with which these areas come and go. In Edinburgh, they often appear and disappear in a matter of months.--MacRusgail 15:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously only well-established and well-known areas should be included, not streets used by prostitutes for a few months. This is supposed to be a guide for interest and research, not a travel guide for sex tourists! There are plenty of websites where people could find those if they really wanted them. Every major town may have places used by prostitutes, but that's not the same thing as a well-established red-light district (which is usually mentioned, if it exists or existed, even in ordinary travel guides). If you can't write an article about it then it probably shouldn't be listed here. -- Necrothesp 18:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps there should be another list for streets used for hooking and this one should be strictly for well known red light districts, either way i think all of the information is worth keeping. --AlexOv Shaolin 02:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tried to fix the inter-linkage patterns for the following pages: Boy's Town Boy's Town, Nuevo Laredo Boy's Town, prostitution

I hope it makes sense to everyone. –M.J.H. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mjh05 (talk • contribs) 20:03, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

Whoever maintains this page might want to make a habit of lurking the World Sex Guide [[1]] web site which can offer some decent take-it-or-leave-it information. Dick Kimball (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

North America

Mexico

How can a list of red light districts in Mexico omit Tijuana? Dick Kimball (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC) Prostitution, including street prostitution, brothels, and sexually available females in bars and strip joints (where customers are allowed to fondle the strippers) is legal in Tijuana's Zona Norte Dick Kimball (talk) 16:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Tijuana's Zona Norte is even listed in your page on Sex tourism. 19:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ciudad Juárez, across the border from El Paso, TX, certainly has its share of openly operated brothels. Dick Kimball (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United States

There really should be an entry on Nevada, which has legal brothels scattered around most counties except Clark County (Las Vegas) and Washoe County (Reno). Dick Kimball (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

100% agree on the areas north of Las Vegas, I would think anyone that looks at Red Light District or is going to travel to an area would like that information. Sherries Ranch was remodeled around 2002-2005. The new owner or co-owner was a sheriff of something of the like, 99% sure they have a website with full details and directions from Las Vegas. Going back a few years and related to Mustang Ranch, Chicken Ranch and Miss Mable's they have a 'Menu' with fixed prices. Cab Drivers/Limo Drivers would take the clients to the brothel, Clients enter a entry room that sometimes contained a bar with over priced drinks, a pool table or other attraction to occupy some time if all the brothel girls are busy. The madam of the house would then offer the menu and sales pitch that stated additional rules, prices or 2 for 1 specials. The client sits on a couch and all the girls come out like a Macy's day parade. Client picks who he wants and goes to that girls room. Each girl has condoms and lube personally stocked and used as a way to gain more tips or kill time. On the menu were fixed items with time limits. Most menu items were in the 400 to 700 range, I do recall a $100 HAND offering as the lowest price (I'm sure a menu is online someplace).

Note: The Cab/Limo Driver will be paid 20% to 35% of all money collected inside not including the drink sales. The drive from Vegas up north to the brothels is about 90 minutes each way. Take 3 clients and maybe the driver gets $100 per fair, (avg $300-$400) per trip, 1/2 the cab fair, and most of the time late to turn his cab in at end of shift. Cab driver pays for gas, and radio fee.... Now the reason for the details, The drivers (Smart ones) would just make a fast trip to the locations below, make a fast $50 or $100 per person in the door (Clubs give big kickbacks (not legal)). A good driver can hit the other strip clubs around the corner and say "I know a place that the girls are full service, it's less than a mile away...", If the fair did not want to pay the full door charge then a good door person would lower the entry fee and give a lower kickback to the driver. If the clients did not want to goto the Red light Club then the driver also has the option to pitch an outcall service and make $100 referral fee. This killed business in the brothels for a few years. No smart drivers would make the long drive with all the local options. Cab drivers are not allowed to pander or offer outcall services, Limo drivers could say anything because they lease the limo for a shift and did not have to take radio calls.

Now reading your lines above, I agree you want verified sources but note that your first line of the Red Light District says something to the effect "In red light districts where prostitution is illegal prostitutes or clients may be arrested or fined if caught by the police (the enforcement of anti-prostitution laws varies by country or place)." So..... find any information like I have added here would be rare I'm sure. Verified, I would think that Wiki is interested in Original content that is related to the main topic. Wiki will be around forever where all google searches give different results and like said before sites come and go. Maybe a timeline would be best, in NY for example, the girls would float from area to area to avoid getting caught so a map/tracking system might be best (Independents post on Craigslist till a year ago when police started to setup stings).

I am a member of the "c64 (Commodore) Warez Scene" and they have the same problem when logging all the groups of people. Everyone has a different view or experience even when they visit the same club on the same day, depends on what your looking for. I would think Content and related information would be best for Wiki over all and someone hit on the point that Information is posted but the posted may not know how to add or the format/location. Above I crossed over Drivers, Brothels, Escorts, Swinger Clubs and Strip Clubs. I could post about the crews that pass out cards on the strip and also about the racks on the street including the content of the magazines, cost, who owns most of them and how they are stocked. Any advise or links to where I can learn how to format the content would be a great help.

I would like to see mass content and possible related topics in the main topic. I do understand verification but I would put that on a sliding scale depending on how easy the information is to locate/depending on subject. Thank you in advance for your comments and suggestions, edit what you want of my information given to best suit the global topic. After reading everyones input on red line subjects and insert/delete comments that this is the best place for me to learn your system and also offer content/information that you would not find anyplace else on the net.

Las Vegas, Nevada. Building located at 3135 Industrial Road. Business named "The Red Light District" Information provided to tourists and cab drivers to promote the entire area from Sapphire (the worlds largest Strip Club) to Deja Vu a strip club in the next building south. Bridge located between buildings is Desert Inn. The area includes Sinful Social Club (Famous fetish parties, now closed), Sinsations Foot, Indulge, Hush (Hushh) Social Club, Body Spa, Roadhouse, Erotic Dancer Outfit World, Hot Bodies, Dead President Tattoo, Can Can Strip Club, Deja Vu Adult Store, And above the Mini Mart covering the 2nd floor is Pornocation.com webcams (moving to new location), Mood Watchers Astrology Reading, NiteCallsOfLasVegas.com Internet Directory, Ideal Entertainment, Ecstacy Video, Taxi & Limo Magazine, Outcall Services like VIP Entertainment, Dial Entertainment, Bad Apple, Blackstar, Candy Girls, Cheaters-Club, Elite Outcall, Strippers Inc. and others that can be located at the Las Vegas city web site. The top floor was going to converted into a social club, due to parking restrictions the business never opened. The building is owned by the same group that owns Sapphire. Stardust casino was across the street and now the Trump Tower is complete. Budget Suites located across the street was owned by Mr. Bigelow and was a common place for hooking up. Since Stardust and the Budget Suites have been removed much of the foot traffic is gone. Pedicab, a trike that can carry 1 driver and 2 passengers no longer operate in the area. Most traffic is generated by Cab and Limo drivers that bring people to the swinger clubs. Some places in Las Vegas give kickbacks to drivers that bring clients. The kickbacks can be from $10.00 up to and over $200.00 (per person). Under the bridge is a new Fat Burger and much of the street will have a major update soon as the new casino that will replace the Stardust is complete. Check out google maps or google street view for the daytime picture of the area. Both buildings have security cameras & security guards 24/7, All of owners know each other and communicate well making it a very safe area for tourists. A mini Red Light District is located at 953 E. Sahara around The Green Door, Bad Lands, Hawks Gay Gym, 8 Ball Pool, Barbie Girls Outcall and a few others near the church located at the 900 block of Karen Ave. A search on KLASTV.com will show many news reports on the adult industry including Swingers, Clubs, Lap Dancing, BDSM, Fetish and much more. —Preceding unsigned comments added by Floyd (talk) 10:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Rhode Island, prostitution is perfectly legal so long as it's conducted entirely indoors. Streetwalking and soliciting are illegal, but you only need to visit Cheaters strip joint at 245 Allens Ave. in Providence to see how this works indoors. Dick Kimball (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC) Dick Kimball (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean

Dominican Republic

I thought it was common knowledge that the Dominican Republic had a very casual attitude toward prostitution, especially around Santo Domingo and the beach resorts. Dick Kimball (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Dominican Republic is even listed in your page on Sex tourism. Dick Kimball (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Central America

Costa Rica

Most recommended is the Hotel Del Rey [[2]] in San Jose: five stories, bright pink, four bars, and most of their prostitutes speak English. Dick Kimball (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Costa Rica is even listed in your page on Sex tourism. Dick Kimball (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South America

Venezuela

Operators of international sex tours to Venezuela advertise that they include one or more female companions, condoms, and Viagra. Dick Kimball (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations on this page

Per WP:Verifiability, a citation is needed for any material challenged or likely to be challenged. There are many well known red-light districts that are not listed simply because some editors have prosecuted a campaign of removing unsourced entries without regard to likelihood of challenge. It's not correct to remove any and all unsourced entries. I'm not saying that any random street should be added, but areas that are well known as present or historic areas of prostitution should be on this list and do not require citations per wikipedia policy. For example, Storyville is not on this list, even though its status as a historical red-light district is not in doubt and has never been questioned. If you feel than an entry needs a citation, tag it, or better yet, research it and add one. Removing entries should be avoided unless justified. Someidiot (talk) 19:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or even better, let the editor who adds an entry to the article provide sources. Which is exactly per WP:Verifiability. If Storyville is so well known it should be very easy to provide a source. Garion96 (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested that, as you'd see if you read my comment. And if you feel strongly about any claim, you should be adding fact tags rather than simply reverting any unsourced addition. Though I feel like you're gaming the system by applying such a strict definition of WP:V to this article. There are plenty of list articles where there is no expectation to provide a cite for every entry. Someidiot (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If asking for citations to you is gaming the system then this discussion is pointless. Garion96 (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you are missing the point of what I'm saying. Continuing with the Storyville example, its notability is based entirely on its history as a redlight district. It's common knowledge, which according to WP:V does not need to be cited. Maybe the average person might not know this, but anyone familiar with the history of New Orleans, or even US history in general, would have heard of it.

Here's another example: the average person might not know that Thimphu is the capital of Bhutan, but people familiar with the region would, and it would be unreasonable to have this fact cited at every reference. And in fact, it is not cited in List of capitals in East, South, and Southeast Asia. Your application of a different standard of verifiability to this article is clearly gaming the system. Someidiot (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read WP:When to cite and WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. Not official policy or anything, but some useful advice that may help you understand why it's not necessary to cite every single entry on this list. Someidiot (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It may be helpful to establish a more specific scope for this article. For example, one could limit the list to

Districts established by government designation (which house at least — say — 60 workers)

(with some flexibility; historically some cities have outlawed prostitution while they set up vice districts under other names with the specific intention of keeping prostitution contained there)

Very large unofficial districts that have a history at least — say — 30 years, and have housed at least — say — 100 workers.

Mind you, those numbers are arbitrary and I am not suggesting that sources must be provided giving exact counts. Only that a good faith effort be made to determine if the district likely meets the criteria (e.g. obviously two small huts do not meet the criteria whereas a government edict covering 4 city blocks and a dozen brothels almost certainly does).

--Mcorazao (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and restored several that had been improperly removed. I also added a few notable omissions. If any editor thinks citations are needed, indicate so by using a fact tag. Simply removing entries without discussion will be taken as a bad-faith edit. Someidiot (talk) 02:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting due to a request to do so at WT:V... I have been involved in several list articles... including some that adhere to very strict citation standards ... where there is a firm consensus that a source must be included at the time that an entry is added (indeed in one case we require multiple sources). I have also been involved in list articles that are amazingly lax in their citation standards. The difference is in understanding why uncited entries should be removed as opposed to tagged.

Most of the lists with strict inclusion criteria involve very controvercial topics... where a less strict inclusion criteria resulted in heated POV debate and edit warring. Others are lists where inclusion could be potentially harmful to those listed. These all fit a pattern. So the question is... does this list fit the same pattern? I am not sure it does.

Yes, we do want these entries to be properly cited ... but I don't see a reason to insist on a strict standard of "citation at the time of inclusion". I don't think the article is going to erupt into edit wars and POV debates over whether a given street or area is included. I also don't think being included in this list will harm the district or those living in it.

With this in mind, I think tagging (with eventual removal possible after everyone has been given a reasonable time to look for sources) is a far better standard than removal for this article. However, I also think that if someone can express a specific reason that a specific entry should be removed (other than "it needs a source") they should be allowed to do so per WP:BURDEN. Blueboar (talk) 20:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also commenting per request at WT:V. What constitutes WP:Common knowledge tends not to be as broad as often thought. Consider whether the knowledge is common to editors and readers on the other side of the planet or from different cultural backgrounds. That said, Blueboar is right that tagging is a more collaborative approach. Category:Dispute templates provides a selection of useful tags for the purpose, such as {{List fact}} that can be used with the "date" parameter to good effect.LeadSongDog come howl 16:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The verifiability policy is very clear: The burden of sourcing lies on the editor who wishes to add material. It is not a burden on the challenger to "prove a negative". True common knowledge is extremely easy to source—if you challenged that the Earth is round or that it is the third planet in orbit around the Sun, I could provide you a dozen reliable sources for that with little effort. If the knowledge is really so common, find these sources and add them. If you can't, maybe the knowledge isn't quite so common as you thought. We write from sources, not from editors' personal knowledge or beliefs. We're not here to be the first to publish something, we're here to summarize and collect information already published. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good discussion. I once again reverted Garion96's vandalism and added fact tags on unsourced entries. This makes it easier for editors wishing to collaborate on this article to easily see where refs are missing and add them in. Thanks to all who help! Someidiot (talk) 10:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You really honour your username if you call that vandalism. Garion96 (talk) 11:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What else is there to call it? You've repeatedly made bad faith edits, you've ignored wikipedia guidelines, you've removed sourced information, you've refused to participate in discussion and ignored consensus. You asked an impartial admin to weigh in, which was a great idea, but since then you've ignored their opinion and continued your campaign of removing information from this page without cause. And now you're being uncivil. If you're not going to make a constructive contribution, I suggest you leave this page to editors who interested in building a consensus and improving wikipedia. Someidiot (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't removed sourced information and I did responded in this discussion. Consensus here is not that clear. But I will see if the fact tags ever gets cited, but I don't have high hopes on it. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Vandalism though, it might help you. Garion96 (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon the name change. I don't see any point in continuing discussion when you're being so disingenuous. The edit history and this talk page confirm everything I've said. If you want to contribute constructively, that would be great, but if not, please stop disrupting wikipedia. EeepEeep (talk) 04:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Disruptive editing is another helpful page for you. Garion96 (talk) 11:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Completeness

Opinion: As I look at this article and read the old discussion above on maintainability it seems to me that the issue needs to be resolved. That is, the list is not "complete" by any definition and it does not appear that it is really headed toward being "complete." I would say that one of two things needs to happen:

Define a scope for the list and get a list of all districts that meet the criteria (removing anything that doesn't meet the criteria), or
Delete the article.

It seems that if the scope is constrained sufficiently it should not be hard to complete the list. But at this point the list is more a random list of items that people have inserted as they feel like it. This is not encyclopedic. The fact that any individual item in the list is referenced and notable does not make the whole list notable. It is only notable if it is complete according to some definition (and that definition should ideally be notable to some degree or another).

--Mcorazao (talk) 16:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Either define a scope or delete the article. To say that this list is unencyclopedic is an understatement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.172.99 (talk) 14:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems pretty well defined to me. Can you explain what you find unencyclopedic about it? 169.233.38.156 (talk) 04:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing random Google map link

An IP editor added this link and then objected to it's removal on the grounds that it's "a project ... which tries to map all known urban red light districts". Be that as it may, it doesn't really belong here for a few reasons:

Wikipedia is not a guidebook
It's a personal project unrelated to wikipedia, so using wikipedia to promote it is inappropriate
It contains uncited info, so associating it with wikipedia is potentially harmful to the project
It's not even close to "all known urban red light districts", at present it's limited in scope to France, the UK, and some scattered parts of Europe

I'm sure there's other reasons, but that's all I can think of off the top of my head. Kuguar03 (talk) 22:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure how to respond in the proper wikipedia way:

- Linking to a map which visualizes the given information is additional value.
- This list of red light districts on wikipedia is not even close to "all known urban red light districts". The mapping project clearly states that it is work in progress searching for input on various channels.
- The mapping is taking place within a research project. Research is the basis of all wikipedia articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.48.5.167 (talk) 22:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that's not the way wikipedia works. When and if this becomes published research, there may be a way to incorporate it, but as it stands it's inappropriate to include. Kuguar03 (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missing citations aka. Doppelmoral

Allright Kuguar. Together we can wok on this article. I am busy deleting all entries without citation to not harm the project. I guess we should check all given citations since they are not really valid ressource if I understood you right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.48.5.167 (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The better thing to do would be to add citations if you can find them. The article's already tagged as needing improved references. Kuguar03 (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That might be better but I don't think wikipedia or any encyclopedia works like this. Given information needs a valid source. If this doesn't exist adding a banner which tells to add citation is not of much use since you might provide false information. in germany you would call it doppelmoral. especially you should understand this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.48.5.167 (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an ongoing, collaborative project. You should probably read the intro pages and do some simple edits first. Making massive changes to articles without discussion is general not a good idea. This article in particular involves some complex issues and has been the subject of much discussion (see above). Kuguar03 (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't made massive changes. Just deleted the entries without proper citation. I believe such entries are what you call "potentially harmful to the project". Seeing that you revoked all necessary changes affirms my opinion that your acting is a clear case of double standards. Otherwise I could publish an article without any citations with maybe lots of false information (like the manchester part in this article) waiting for somebody to find proper ressources to backup what's written. I guess you made your own directives which you follow but don't call it the proper wikipedia way. 78.49.36.135 (talk) 13:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undid the massive deletion of content as there is specific Wikipedia policy for this: see WP:PRESERVE. - Takeaway (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting that the self-appointed guardians of wikipedia policies are talking about posible harms but are not interested at all to keep articles at least truthfully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.108.249 (talk) 11:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to be an exception to WP:RS. There can be no objection to deleting any entries without citation or not blue-linked to an article with citations. I think there's a lot of BS here. I'm not going to do mass deletions but I am going to delete one red-linked item without citation that I personally know to be BS (Commercial Rd, London, UK)DeCausa (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of red-light districts. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060104041530/http://japaninc.com:80/article.php?articleID=1285&page=4 to http://www.japaninc.com/article.php?articleID=1285&page=4

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of red-light districts. 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:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110724094357/http://v.tgdn.net/2009/09/guest-post-anne-gray-fischer-history-of-the-combat-zone.html to http://v.tgdn.net/2009/09/guest-post-anne-gray-fischer-history-of-the-combat-zone.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of red-light districts. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cms-uk.org/settingcaptivesfree/downloads/02_SCF_Children.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.advocacynet.org/cpage_view/startingsmall_05education_19_105.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.advocacynet.org/cpage_view/startingsmall_05education_19_105.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110924152138/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002815117_amsterdam19.html?syndication=rss to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002815117_amsterdam19.html?syndication=rss
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604091919/http://libraries.uta.edu/SpecColl/crose07/CR-Fall2007.pdf to http://libraries.uta.edu/SpecColl/crose07/CR-Fall2007.pdf

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) 02:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of red-light districts. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091026025023/http://www.sleazoidexpress.com/ to http://www.sleazoidexpress.com/

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) 12:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page Length

The page is getting extremely long.

Although we could split Europe off into it's own article, there's not enough content in the other continent sections to warrant separate articles for each.

In an attempt to shorten the page I've changed it as follows:

Made larger sections into two columns.
Moved images into galleries (2 columns plus an image on the right can give strabge effects on a small screen).
Made the references section scrollable (I did think of having it hidden with a 'show' button, but if you click on a ref in the text the page scrolls down to the references sction but doesn't open it).
Made the TOC scrollable.

Having done all that, I'm not sure the layout looks right.

Anybody any thoughts?

Changed method of scrolling TOC, previous template didn't hide on mobile and was superimposed over content --John B123 (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved problem of images on right on small screen - Images need to be at start of section. Moved images from gallery to right hand side --John B123 (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of red-light districts. 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) 00:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of red-light districts. 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) 15:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removed three listings from Seoul, South Korea.

I have removed the statement that Cheonho-dong has one of the largest red-light districts in Seoul and its associated source. The source in question (rocketreports.com) cannot in any way be considered reliable, as it is an anonymous blog loaded with sex ads. 147.46.57.248 (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstated with new refs --John B123 (talk) 08:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]