Talk:Client (prostitution)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Client (prostitution) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Sexology and sexuality: Sex work B‑class Top‑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
B	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Sex work task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Requested move 2 February 2019

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

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 20:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Client (prostitution) → John (prostitution) – Although the term "john" is sometimes associated with American English, if you do a google search you will find plenty of sources where it is used n british newspapers, Australian and African etc. The term john to describe prostitute's clients seem to have become ubiquitous. As such, it seems that wp:COMMON applies here. 88.104.40.76 (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 12:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. In terms of page views, when you check the stats prior to the creation of this page, "tricks" received on average 2 views a day, the current title received such few views that it returns an error tag, which probably suggests that it received no views at all, the term "whore monger" receives either no views or sometimes gets a single view, but the daily average is so low, the counter lists it as 0 views. Finally the entry "john" clearly comes out on top, head and shoulders above the other terms at 18 page views on average (see counter). Since the term "john" also gets the most search returns on Google news and Google scholar, the article title proposed meets WP:COMMONNAME requirements. 92.10.236.100 (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Absolutely no need to use a slang term. Yes, the term "john" is used in British English too. But the term "client" is also very commonly used in both varieties of English, and tends to be used in official and non-tabloid media language. Many people wouldn't know what a prostitute's "john" was; the meaning of their "client" is obvious to anyone. I don't see the value in moving this article and I really don't think WP:COMMONNAME applies. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Necrothesp. No need to move to American slang just for the sake of it. Encyclopaedic content shouldn't always be determined by a Google search. - SchroCat (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The issue here is whether we go by arbitrary/subjective notions of what is or is not "encyclopedic", or whether we follow WP:COMMONNAME. For better or worse, I see no basis in policy to follow the former, and of course the latter is policy. --В²C ☎ 04:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think we can dismiss attempts to go for an encyclopedic style on the grounds that this is often subjective. Although I think a lot of British people will have heard "john" used in this context, client is still more common. "John" would not be comprehensible to everyone, would be regarded by many as an Americanism, slang, and perhaps even offensive to men called "John". PatGallacher (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A serious reference work, which Wikipedia aspires to be, does not title with slang in place of perfectly correct universal proper terms. Even in North America, a john is firstly a toilet. Outside North American, John for a prostitute’s client is virtually unheard of. Thus, a prostitute’s John will be widely misrecognised as the prostitute’s toilet bowl. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as John is slang for multiple things, subject to regional differences, and as per Necrothesp's reasons. Smith(talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Although this discussion is now closed, I note that "john" in this sense is recognised as an Americanism in two places on Wikipedia: Glossary of American terms not widely used in the United Kingdom and John school. PatGallacher (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The corresponding term in Britain is "punter", as in Punternet. --John B123 (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heterocentric analysis

I appreciate the references to the feminist critiques of sex work but those critiques as well as the rest of this article seems entirely heterocentric to me. Tristanbobistan (talk) 23:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]