Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/Sex work task force/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Original project proposal

==Sex workers==

Description
This project would be a gathering place for editors with a strong interest and knowledge in sex worker issues, including history, research and contemporary events and developments as they pertain to sex workers. We would focus on contributing to pages that directly affect or address, and/ or traditionally ignore, sex workers and their relevant perspectives, histories and experiences. A specific task force would focus on contributing to or creating entries for serial killers who focused on murdering sex workers as well as victims when appropriate. Yet another task of this project would be to monitor and counter sex worker discrimination and bias. In my opinion, just the first three entries listed below could take a team of dedicated editors an enormous amount of time and work to update and keep current. The following is a partial list (in no particular order) of potential pages as an example of some of the work that could be done. Please also feel free to contact me directly on my talk page with any suggestions or thoughts. Thanks. NoMonaLisa (talk) 07:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. User:mixtapebooty
  2. User:NoMonaLisa
  3. User:sarahjenny
  4. User:Frao61
  5. User:Doug
  6. John Carter (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC) - probably primarily in copyediting, reviewing, and the like, as even to date I still haven't actually written many articles, but will do what I can
  7. Iamcuriousblue (talk) - I actually thought something like this was needed awhile back after going seeing what an absolute mess articles like Prostitution and Sex worker were. Thumbs up to User:NoMonaLisa for getting this off the ground! —Preceding comment was added at 02:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  8. User:Mgoodyear
Comments

The project would have to ensure that none of the content violates WP:OR or WP:POV as well. Also, perhaps a more clearly defined scope would be in order. I am thinking that perhaps defining the scope as Category:Sex workers and its subcategories might be useful. Additional subcategories can be created for the content which does not currently exist within that category. John Carter (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concerns about violating WP:OR or WP:POV, however what I am suggesting (perhaps somewhat in an ill-worded way?) is that we abide by such Wikipedia suggestions/rules such as this one found on the WP:NPOVFAQ: 1.1.2: "....material that balances the bias should be added, and sources should be found per WP:V." Also to contribute where most people are not aware that there is more factual information to report since they simply haven't been exposed to it. This is a problem surrounding sex worker issues in general because of continuing problems with biased and unethical journalism standards concerning this population. A small example of information that could be added: on the Robert Pickton page it mentions that those murdered were women from Vancouver's Skid Row and that they were mostly prostitutes. However, it isn't mentioned (among many other things) that two sex workers from the same area were civilian reporters during the length of the trial. To address your other suggestion, I am not sure if I completely understand how the category/ sub-category framework would work yet. Sex worker as a category for some of the pages above might be considered extraneous (and thus deleted) although mention within the article would be relevant. Does that make sense? Thanks for taking the time to write. NoMonaLisa (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Generally, it works most easily if a porject has a clearly defined category with subcategories to place articles relevant to it in. That doesn't mean that all the articles have to be fit in that single category, though. A Category:Crimes against sex workers could be created within the Category:Sex workers, for instance. One way to phrase it might be that this group intends to deal with the articles in the Category:Sex industry, focusing the bulk of its attention on that content which isn't already covered in the clear focus of any other projects, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography. Would that be acceptable? Clearly, the Pornography project, like Doug said below, will overlap this one in several ways, but such a statement would allow your project to deal with the relevant content in that area as well, without "laying claim" to it. Other people could probably phrase it better, though. John Carter (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the Category, if you drill down through it, it seems to cover most of the topics discussed (that doesn't necessarily mean that has to be the name however).--Doug.(talk • contribs) 00:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Not sure the title "Sex Worker Issues" is appropriate, it makes it sound like a forum. Seems like WikiProject Sex worker (second word after WikiProject is normally lower case) or WikiProject Prostitution. Suggest striking the reference to "(especially sex workers themselves)" in the description above to avoid suggestion of exclusivity as well as the issues User:John Carter mentioned.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 18:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I did strike out the reference to sex workers themselves. However, I am still wavering on changing the title from sex worker issues to simply sex worker which considerably narrows the scope of the project. There are a lot of topics that people wouldn't normally think that sex workers have involvement in (other than as passive victims), such as HIV/AIDS and serial murderers. I would like the people who get involved with this list to realize that we are not just going to edit and monitor topics relating to types of sex work and the sex industry. Perhaps there is some middle ground?NoMonaLisa (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I see your point, though I'm not sure that necessarily limits the scope. I can now see that Prostitution is far too narrow a term. On the other hand, you will find that some people who would join wouldn't have any interest in some of the issues anyway. What about WikiProject Sex work? That term is used on the article Sex worker and the term itself redirects there. Or WikiProject Erotic labour as in Canadian Guild for Erotic Labour? Those concepts certainly include the related issues within their scopes. Or even WikiProject Sex industry (though that sounds kind of blah). I really just don't like the issues word because it makes me think the project is going to discuss the issues rather than write about them. In any case, I think you should probably create shortcuts/redirects from WikiProject Prostitution, WikiProject Sex worker, etc. Even as you have it, I'm not sure that Slut really falls under the topic though and the article as currently written would seem to agree. Also there will be some overlap with Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography - I don't see how you can avoid that. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Doug, I thought about it and decided to change the title to WikiProject Sex workers. What do you think about that?
Considering the other things I've said, I think I pretty much have to agree.  :-) Yeah, I like it better.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 23:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I figured since I just created a tiny stub for ISWFACE, I ought to add my name, mostly interested in sex worker rights type articles.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 22:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, the sex workers page needs to much work done that you could keep busy for a long, long, long time. Thanks so much for your interest and all the help you've given so far.NoMonaLisa (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I do get the impression that this group would probably function best as a subproject of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality. As such, it probably has enough support already (I could help with banners and tagging and such, making myself at least a quasi-member, even if I can't write very well or often). As such, it could still deal with most of the "issues" related anyway, considering most if not all would fall within the scope of the parent project. Also, we should remember that the average article will welcome input from any parties, regardless of project affiliation, anyway, whether the article is in their official "scope" or not. Regarding AIDS, for instance, that article is probably already as good as its likely to get, being an FA, but there wouldn't be any objections to creating separate articles about STDs in the sex industry, which would be more clearly within the scope of this group anyway. John Carter (talk) 14:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hm, I suppose that I feel it's still a bit confusing and murky. For instance, clearly, WikiProject Sexuality and Society and WikiProject Pornography overlap. Yet, they are separate projects. A project centered around sex workers obviously overlaps with both of those projects yet it is also a separate subject. I am still having a hard time trying to figure out if it should be contained within the pre-existing Sexuality and Society group or if, like Pornography, it deserves its own project despite the fact that it can be included in the Sexuality umbrella. I do like your suggestion though that since the Sexuality project is already so well-established that there will be a good deal of people who will probably be exposed to the project and interested in helping. That may be a good enough reason to do it. Also thanks so much for your offer to set up banners and do tagging. Are there any structural examples of what you are describing to me as a good way to organize this project that I could look at on Wikipedia? I think seeing it tangibly on Wikipedia will help me make the final decision on this faster. Thanks so much.NoMonaLisa (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with John that it would be a subproject of Sexology and Sexuality, most projects are subprojects of something, it's just a way of thinking about topics, it doesn't really mean anything in my opinion. Yes, you could share a banner with them maybe and you'd probably link to each other's pages in any case; but even if you are a top level project (where it sometimes becomes a chicken and egg game - which is the parent Biology or Tree of Life?) you are never really "independent" we're all subprojects of "The Project". From the way I read it, John isn't suggesting a task force or work group, where you really are a subpage of the parent project, but simply a more or less formal relationship to another project. There's also a less formal parentage probably to WP:ECON or WP:BUSINESS (I don't see a WP:LABOR or WP:GUILD which might be more intuitive)--Doug.(talk • contribs) 23:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
In a sense, if not in name, the Pornography project is already a "topical" subproject of the Sexology and Sexuality project. Basically, it might be possible to set up the project banner like either the Australia banner on Talk:Sydney or alternatively the Hinduism banner on Talk:hindu mythology, which actually contains both the "Hindu mythology" and "Hinduism" banners, although they appear separately. It would also provide assessments for both. I acknowledge I've had difficulties setting up copies of the Australia banner, but the Hinduism banner looks a bit more straightforward, if that's the example you'd like to follow. John Carter (talk) 01:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I like the format of the Talk:hindu mythology banner better. It seems clearer to me than the other. I think that I am about at the point where I would like to make this a sub-project of WikiProject Sexuality.
Wow, I've never seen that Hinduism banner before, that's an interesting way to do things. Doesn't really reduce "talk page clutter" (whatever that is) much, but it does show the "sub-project" in a much more prominent light than the Australia banner that treats the subproject similar to a WP:MILHIST task force.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 03:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Being a sub-project of (or perhaps until you get more editors signed-on, even a task-force under) sexology and sexuality certainly makes sense to me. To the list of suggested topics, perhaps you could add something along the lines of "Dominatrix" or "Professional BDSM" (to be both gender and top/bottom inclusive) or some such? Also, personally I really love the term "Erotic laborer" and prefer it to "Sex worker" since it's both more inclusive and less likely to be confounded with "prostitute". You may also wish to add topics for "erotic bodyrub" and/or "phone sex operator". To me, the focus on serial killers seems a bit arbitrary. Perhaps instead, a focus on "crimes against sex workers" with reference to both crimes, victims, and the way various legal systems might treat the incidents. The recent Judge Deni case in Pa. for example, has nothing to do with serial killers, but is rather relevant to the topic of sex workers. And perhaps expand the HIV/AIDS topic to also include other STIs which may be more commonly transmitted? --Ajasen (talk) 08:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I definitely envisioned all of the topics that you brought up as being relevant and part of this project. My list was an extremely partial one, not meant to be representative of all the topics that should be covered. The naked truth is that I started a list and then got tired-- thus the focus on prostitution which is overrepresented only because it's where I began. The Judge Deni case certainly would be covered. Please feel free to add all of the topics you suggested to the list. My suggestion about focusing on sex worker serial killers (not serial killers in general) was rather more because of a traditional basis around the way these crimes are reported and how sex worker community activism around these murders is frequently un/under-reported-- contributing to ignorance in the general public and encyclopedic world that sex workers are frequently agents of action rather than always the passive victim they are portrayed as. Having Crimes against sex workers as a category as John mentioned earlier in this conversation is a great idea. Please sign up as an editor! Thanks for your comments!NoMonaLisa (talk) 10:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I definitely think this is a needed project, since sex work-related articles on Wikipedia tend to be in a very messy and tendentious state. First, I think the title "WikiProject Sex Work" is probably best, since "sex work" seems to me to be more general, and hence more descriptive of the overall scope, than "sex workers". As for "sex work" versus "erotic labor" versus "prostitution", I really feel like "sex work" is both the most general and most established term. Prostitution, stripping, porn modeling, phone sex, etc, are all different phases of "sex work", so "sex work" is a good general term; also, "sex work" is in widespread use and has clear precedent in both general and social science literature; terms like "erotic labor" are not nearly so well-established. As for POV issues, yes, sex work is probably one of the most hotly controversial topics out there today, as quick search of feminist and sex worker blogs (as well as the general news media) will quickly reveal. And we should definitely be on guard biasing articles in favor of either a pro-sex industry, pro-sex workers' rights, or pro-abolitionist agenda. And I'll note that, if anything, I think I've seen the greatest degree of POV pushing coming from strong abolitionists – see Talk:Melissa Farley for a particularly notable example of this controversy, and see also Trafficking in human beings for a milder example of unbalanced coverage – having some authors on this subject who are coming from a perspective other than the "abolitionist" one would actually help inject a little balance into this subject. Not that self-described abolitionists don't belong in this project or that abolitionist perspectives shouldn't be covered in articles, its just a matter of balance. (Unfortunately, use of the term "sex work" is itself controversial, with abolitionists strongly opposing this term and demanding use of "commercial sexual exploitation", a far more POV and loaded term, IMO.) However, just because a topic is controversial should not disqualify it as a WikiProject. One need only look at the potential issues around the proposed "Feminism" project on this same page – same issues apply there too, after all. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 03:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've left a message on the talk page of the Sexology and Sexulaity project requeting input regarding creation of a task force. If I don't get substantial negative response by the 15th, which will be a week after the message was first posted, I'll be bold and create it. John Carter (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, so you are going to go forward with it as a Task Force rather than a stand alone project? I don't know that it makes much difference, that would actually make it easier to dual taskforcize should there eventually be a WikiProject Labor.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 17:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
You've wondered about that possibility, too? I've noted we have the Organized Labour project for unions, but nothing relating specifically to employment or work itself. Maybe the times come to propose one? Biography theoretically deals with a lot of job titles and the like, but it might not be bad to create a more specific group. John Carter (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Name change

I still think the name of this work group should be "Sex work", not "Sex workers". The scope of this project should be the larger topic of sex work in general – the title "sex workers" and the description "This group includes within its scope all articles related to sex workers, their culture, history, individual people involved, and so on" narrows the scope too much. Discuss. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I am completely open to a name change. Can you explain to me more how you see the title and description as limiting and what topics you feel it doesn't cover that it should, etc? I have a feeling that we have the similar idea about what the scope of the project should be and I am interested to hear what your points are. Right now I feel like anywhere where there is sex work there are necessarily sex workers so that this is not inherently or necessarily limiting. Plus I think keeping this project centered on human beings rather the abstract in title has its advantages.--NoMonaLisa (talk) 07:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think "sex workers" strongly implies almost a biographical focus. Articles like Brothel or Girlfriend experience that are about aspects of the sex industry or sex work itself, rather than sex workers as individuals, should be covered by this project, but the title "Sex workers" doesn't really cover that well. Similarly, many of the individuals who fall into Category:Sex industry researchers and activists who are not themselves sex workers don't fit very well in a project titled "Sex workers". In renaming it "Sex work", I'm seeking a term that more properly covers the breadth of scope of this project. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I feel most convinced by your point about how many people involved in the sex industry whether as researchers, activists or otherwise may not be sex workers and how the name of the project can be too confining in this sense. Let's also hear how the other group members weigh in on this one before we make any moves though, ok?--NoMonaLisa (talk) 05:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
OK – I'll put a notice on Doug and John Carter's userpages asking them to weigh in on the topic. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 13:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I've been following. I would support the proposed change, seems to be consistent with some of the things I was saying as part of the proposal.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 20:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Fine by me as well. John Carter (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Another topic entirely, but jeez, I wish we could be the "Sex work task force" rather than the "Sex work work group." I mean I can see the future posts: "New Sex work work group proposed work areas." Oy. --NoMonaLisa (talk) 08:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree, "Sex work task force" is much better. I have no idea how WP differentiates between a "work group" and a "task force", in any event. Unless there are any objections, I say lets make that name change. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 18:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the recently appended scope of this project – "All of these articles should be contained within the Category:Sex workers or one of its subcategories." – I strongly feel that the scope of this project as it's being conceived right now is way too narrow. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
By all means write a sample statement that you feel is most comprehensive and post it here so we can discuss it before it goes up. I started to append the shorter statement and then stopped in favor of creating and writing up some of the infrastructure stuff. I think you have a clear idea of the scope of the project as I am thinking of it also, but perhaps you have a clearer idea of how to word it. I think we all and the project would benefit from that if you are up to doing it.--NoMonaLisa (talk) 05:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll write something up in the next day or so and post it here. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 13:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you.--NoMonaLisa (talk) 08:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Creation of an Open Tasks List/ Creating Guidelines and Standards

Hey everyone, I am trying to create some infra and extra-structure to our task force and I started by using the Sexuality's project's Open Task List as a template for our own. Please feel free to go in there and add and edit.

Also I think that we should try and create internal guidelines for when we think an article is up to par according, i.e what are our task forces standards? I don't know tons about creating organizational navigation between the pages and I am learning as I go. For instance I think we need to look at the categories that fall under our radar and start fleshing out how we are going to sort them/ have them relate to each other. That's an important project. We can also have a more detailed system on the Open Task List instead of just "major and minor edits needed." we could have a section for "major discrimination," "minor mentions/ edit issues," "major content needed," "absence of sex worker presence/ history," "research needed on sex worker involvement here," "current developments edits..." well anyway, I am making this up as I go along. The main gist of my thinking is that people may prefer (and may be encouraged) to jump in if they can clearly choose just what type of snarl they are getting into quite easily. Too tired to link everything I mentioned right this second as well as provide clear examples, but I will come back to do it-- I promise. Can't wait to hear lots of thoughts and suggestions from you all.--NoMonaLisa (talk) 07:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everything you said, actually, particularly the matter of categorization. Right now I'm tied up elsewhere for a day or so, but will try to do what I can when that's done. The template at the top of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics looks like what you're talking about regarding the to-do list, although you could easily add other sections as well. But I do think everything you said makes perfect sense. John Carter (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthrosexual

I would appreciate it if you could voice your opinion on the article Anthrosexual, which is currently up for deletion.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 06:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

In case anyone didn't notice, the article was deleted and then the page was recreated as a redirect to Pomosexual.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Melissa Farley

I noticed that Melissa Farley is up on the notice board. Sigh. Would it be terrible if we got a little bit of work done on our internal organization and the first three or four articles in the "major work" section well on their way (if not more) *before* we work on one of the most vicious debates on Wikipedia? I am afraid Farley will put us in the middle of an ongoing and time consuming strife that may be a little too early in our relatively small and young group's career. But please, give me other thoughts. --NoMonaLisa (talk) 08:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right on internal organization, but I think straightening out four major article is actually going to be more time-consuming, and I say this as somebody who has edited larger general articles before. As for the Melissa Farley article, I think the problem would take care of itself rather quickly if the article just had a few more sets of eyes on it. Basically, there's one editor with a very strong "prostitution abolitionist" agenda who's objecting to much of the article, and me on the other side of it. I've found that disputes with multiple parties can generally come to some kind of consensus, while articles that are edited by exactly two editors at loggerheads are exceedingly hard, if not impossible, to resolve. I say keep it on the notice board until the issue is resolved, even if nobody wants to deal with it right now. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The problem with doing almost any work on Ms. Farley and the others of her ilk is that it is like dealing with a fanatic religious cult. As far as I can tell, there is no way to appropriately discuss if a fact is objectively true or not (and in Farley's case at least, I've found out that at least some of her stuff is self-published and of dubious authenticity and scholarship) because her supporters, approach all articles from the point of view of "faith" rather than "reason". And they are more than a bit aggressive.
They do things like track down anyone who's edits they don't agree with (or in my case it was they didn't like how I phrased some questions on the article's "talk" page) outside of wikipedia (on the web) and stalk and harass them. A disciple of hers re-edited the "talk" page making new entries with pieces of my questions, chopped up and out of context, specifically denigrating me by name (in the title of their newly made entries) where they put long harangues on why I was a "bad" person. And when following the advice of an admin I tried to do the "Wikiquette" stuff, one of Farley's acolytes showed up on my talk page and began (metaphorically) running around in circles screaming and pulling a "gay panic" reaction, because OMG she decided I was one of "teh lezzies!!" so I MUST be hitting on her or something
Wikipedia did not really help, (and truthfully even though it was happening to me I could hardly believe it either), so I backed off doing anything on Wikipedia for a long, long time after that. Can't say I'm overly thrilled to start anything with these people again either, sigh. CyntWorkStuff (talk) 03:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear about all this. There is a group of radical feminists who seem to resemble Scientology more than just a little, and like Scientologists vis a vis psychiatry, anybody doing writing about sex work who doesn't toe the radical feminist/abolitionist party line is due for a negative encounter with these people sooner or later.
I remember Nikki Craft in particular was quite rude to you. Craft, however, is no longer editing Wikipedia. (Craft, BTW, is not actually an "acolyte" of Melissa Farley, but actually kind of a political comrade in arms of hers, going back to the 1980s. Craft's editing the article at all was a severe violation of Wikipedia's rules about conflict of interest.) I don't know what the relationship between Axiomatica and Melissa Farley, Craft, and others is, except to note that this user seems to have a lot invested in creating an article that creates a wholly favorable and uncritical impression of Farley and her research and not about to let little things like NPOV stand in their way. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Sex work types

Hey, I did a bunch of work on the List of sex work types tonight that I think makes our job a lot clearer. Go in there and take a look. My method was to look up words, see what article came up and then go to the side bar where it says "what links here" and then filter that out by "redirects only." A much quicker, more comprehensive way of doing what I started manually. If you don't see things represented there in the list as is, please search what you would like to see and add the redirect information to the appropriate place. My categories may be a bit slip-shod so feel free to edit those a bit too. Let me know what you all think.--NoMonaLisa (talk) 06:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sex Worker Rights, Sex Worker, Sex Industry, Sex Tourism

These are some of our big main articles that need to be worked on. Serious content missing! More than that we should have a discussion about what topics we wish to cover generally in these areas and then, what belongs where, aka parameters. I have been puzzling personally over where issues like work discrimination go. I started building it in sex worker rights taking cue from what was there as "Employment issues," but maybe that should go under Sex worker and then somehow have it linked to the various landmark and touchstone cases in sex worker rights, that would include the activism around the topic? I don't know. I need someone else to look at it. I'm too confused right now. --NoMonaLisa (talk) 06:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

General Issues with Articles that fall under our "Jurisdiction"

  • Citations Needed

What I noticed when making up the list of redirects for the List of sex work types page was that most of the articles that we will want to cover suffer from a lack of cited sources. So those among us who are big sex work and sexuality readers need to break out our books and cite these articles. --NoMonaLisa (talk) 06:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

There is currently a request for arbitration regarding an article relevant to this group at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Melissa Farley. Any comments would be welcome. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it is being rejected by ArbCom for lack of any real attempt to get others involved. We should try to get involved in editing this article. I generally despise "so and so has been criticized for this and that" issues, but certainly wouldn't want to be seen as taking sides. I'll try to take a good look at the article shortly. No guaranties though, busy IRL.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I would note too that one of the listed parties is a member of this project. Not that this would affect anyone's opinions but it might give perspective on the direction other editors are approaching either the article or this project or both.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking for references

I'm looking for reliable third party sources on Norma Jean Almodovar. I'm drafting an article in userspace and have also written the stub ISWFACE which is one of her organizations; but there isn't a lot of the basic info on the web outside of her website that I find. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Tagging campaign

We appear to have just under 60 stubs tagged with our banner. Three more legitimately tagged stubs and we can justify creation of a stub category such as Category:Sex work stubs, even now we could easily justify an "upmerged" stub template so we I can stop tagging stubs with both {{sex-stub}} and {{job-stub}}. I'll work on requesting approval for the stub templates.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That won't be a problem. Let me work on a few more assessments here, and we should have enough by Monday at the latest. John Carter (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Stub cat and stub template requested at: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals#Cat:Sex_occupation_stubs_.2F_.7B.7BSex-job-stub.7D.7D, discussion welcome.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 23:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey we really need folks to check in an discuss this at the above link. Stub sorting names categories according to the "permcats" that is the non-stub categories that exist. The current perm-cat that is most relevant is Category:Sex workers which has the same bio focus issues that resulted in the name we have for this sub-project (task force/work group/whatever). Additionally, the vast majority of the stubs are in fact bios (so I'm told, I haven't checked them out closely). Thoughts?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I just went and tagged everything in the subcategories of Category:Sex industry researchers and activists, with the exception of the majority of people falling under the category "Anti-pornography activists", since most of these individuals are primarily concerned with pornography as media rather than sex work. (I did tag the Andrea Dworkin article, however, since she wrote extensively about prostitution and was an ex-prostitute herself.) BTW, I noticed that the articles on COYOTE and Margo St. James were basically stubs. Anybody who is aware of the historic importance of this group and individual in the sex worker rights movement, and expanding these articles should be a priority. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 04:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:British erotica writers notability questions

I can't help but get the impression that maybe, somehow, Nexus Books is involved in the creation of a lot of the articles here. I don't see any clear indications of independent notability in a lot of them. Would anyone here have any reservations about nominating at least some of these articles for deletion on the basis of unasserted notability? I don't know enough about this one way or another to say anything myself. John Carter (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I took a look, considering that if they were really A7, I'd just delete them, but I have to say that assertion of importance is a pretty low standard and they seem to meet that. As you can find these books on Amazon and they have ISBNs they likely also meet Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#Threshold_standards. Still, they may not meet WP:NB and could be nominated at WP:AfD if anyone cared to. I'll decline as I really don't know if they are notable, it would take some homework or at least some time on Google. They're certainly marginal, a far cry from The Pearl, which is probably badly miscategorized/undercategorized.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 23:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

List of sex work types

The article List of sex work types has been moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/Sex work work group/List of sex work types, as it was pretty clearly some sort of organization scheme or to-do list for this project rather than an article. The creator hasn't been seen in three weeks. --Dhartung | Talk 22:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The creator was tired of doing work and checking back a bunch and not seeing anything done so she took a break, but she is super excited that so much has happened since she has been gone! I followed the lead of other articles and their structures when I did the sex work type list. I don't have time to look into it all right now and figure out, but since it's moved-- it's moved and that's fine. Sorry you missed me for so long.--NoMonaLisa (talk) 05:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Poll: change "Sex work work group" to "Sex work task force"?

I remember there was talk of a name change about a month ago. I'm just going to formally poll the group members to see whether everybody is on board with this, and if so, I'll move everything in this group to the new name. Note that templates for this group will need to be changed too. Anyway, the poll.

Poll: Do the members of this group wish to change the name of this group from "Sex work work group" to "Sex work task force"?

 Done or at least started. I didn't touch any templates yet and I'm not really sure how to fix the category for the project short of emptying it and creating a new one. I also took the liberty of changing out stated scope from Category:Sex workers to Category:Sex industry, which is a parent of the former.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 01:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I just did and it seems to have worked OK – I think I managed to get all templates and subpages, though it might take a little bit for the database to catch up. There are two categories that I wasn't able to change: Category:Sex workers work group and Category:Sex workers work group articles because only an admin can change category names. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't familiar with that ability so I looked it up. It doesn't appear there is any special way to rename Categories. You just empty one and fill the new one and delete or tag for deletion the old one. I tinkered with the project banner to fix the cats. I created Category:Sex work task force and Category:Sex work task force articles and then I tried to fix some of the sub cats but got all snarled up when I found that there were two cats with "sex worker" in their names rather than "sex work" and the old "FA-Class sex work articles" etc. were generated somehow and have assessment information on them. There's also a parameter of the template that uses "sex-workers=yes" but I don't know if there's any easy way to change that. John, could you take a look at the tampering I did to the banner and see if I messed anything up and also see if there's anything else we can fix? Do you know how to fix the assessment categories?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 04:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't bother to fix the assessment categories since those parameters don't actually show up in the final text that is displayed. Simply giving the parameter "sex-workers=yes" gives you "Sex Work Task Force" on the displayed template. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The assessments table has been created to match the new name. It looks like everything works now. John Carter (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Good work! Iamcuriousblue (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible overuse of "Expand" tag

I personally can't see any reason why so many articles which are already tagged as stubs should also have an "expand" tag on them. It tends to cheapen the value of the expand tag. I would suggest that the group only use that tag for articles of Top importance to the project which are Start or Stub class and articles of High importance which are Stub class, as that would help focus a bit of attention on those articles. Would such an alteration be acceptable to the rest of you as well? It would require having someone go through many of the articles to determine High and Top importance, but I think that would probably be a good idea anyway. John Carter (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think your suggestion makes a lot of sense.--NoMonaLisa (talk) 05:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

To-do List for the project

Hi everyone, very excited to see so much going on! Sorry for the absence. I noticed that what I originally drew up as our Open tasks List is still linked as such on our project page. I'm not sure if we want to instead have something more concise like what we have up at the top of this page. I haven't seen anyone comment on or alter anything I originally wrote so I am unsure of its usefulness to the group or to people who want to help. Thoughts? --NoMonaLisa (talk) 06:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Membership template

Next to the membership list it invites people to use this template:

This editor is a member of
Sex work task force.

. It currently is empty, was it possible created in a differently named location? Tyciol (talk) 06:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 20:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Male prostitution

Hey WP-Sexology/sexuality members. I would really appreciate it if some project member(s) might take a look at the Male prostitution page and try to bring it up to snuff by adding sources and references, if possible. You could also check out Talk:Male_prostitution#Introduction to see some issues that one editor has about sexual orientation vs sexual behavior and, hopefully, address those concerns. Thanks - NYArtsnWords (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Prostitution in ancient Rome

I've just created the article Prostitution in ancient Rome, based on W. C. Firebaugh's notes in his translation of the Satyricon of Petronius Arbiter, which are in the public domain.

Since this text was first published in 1920, it is somewhat out of date, and I would imagine that scholarship has moved on since then. This is thus in great need of cleanup and revision (which is why I'm posting about it here) but it seemed like a good starting point for a proper article. -- The Anome (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

General comments re standards

It strikes me that the general standard of prostitution articles is not very good, and lacks an empirical approach. I left a note on Netherlands, since I was writing a book chapter on it, and have done quite a bit of work on New Zealand, which was quite inadequate in view of its importance. Mgoodyear (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit wars continue to be a problem particularly from certain anonymous users with a track record. POV issues abound, the general thrust being to make the pages about trafficking and child prostitution. I have recently re-written Australia, Sweden and Taiwan. I just left a POV note on Canada. Mgoodyear (talk) 13:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
You really have to keep your eye on the ball in this field - when I go back and look what happened to articles I rewrote I am stunned at the way references are deleted, whole sections gone, and a few people insist on adding major sections on child prostitution, crime and trafficking as if they were the only issues. Mgoodyear (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree that this is an ongoing problem. There were unfortunately large numbers of articles on specific aspects of prostitution spun off of the main prostitution article which essentially became POV fork. (See section "POV Forks" below.) It is a difficult judgment call on how to deal with articles that have had a large amount of material added that is entirely one-sided. On one hand, to start throwing out material in order to balance out the article is problematic and could be seen as clear POV pushing. On other hand, adding a similar amount of balancing material is a tremendous effort. This "get there first with the most citations" approach to POV pushing on Wikipedia is something that's never been adequately dealt with on a systematic level by Wikipedia. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 19:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for catching the (usually anonymous) changes to Prostitution in Sweden today - I am monitoring Swedish media very carefully. It is not so much a matter of throwing out material to maintain POV as checking its accuracy and correcting it or adding the correct citations. Another little trick I noticed is to subtly delete citations, then the article gets hit with a credibility tag, inviting others to delete your work as unverified. I had completely rewritten New Zealand from primary sources - now its almost unrecognisable - including removing most of the references. Mgoodyear (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Please see TJ Black's excellent page which summarises the issues nicely. May I suggest members of the task force learn to recognise each other to avoid tripping over each other and increasing each other's workload.Mgoodyear (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sexology_and_sexuality/Sex_work_task_force/Archive_1&oldid=1083421270"