Jump to content

Talk:Sex industry/Archives/2019

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


adding more information to immigrigation

I am adding more information on this section in regards to the sex industry and immigration in regards to sex tourism, sex trafficking and sex work. I felt the information was not very informative and not everyone migrates willing for sex work. I wanted to high light of sex tourism.(DiaEdie (talk) 04:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiaEdie (talk • contribs) 20:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

citing sources

I went ahead and cited more sources on the portion of Prostitution. I took out race and prostitution and added it reword it as well as citing with more sources since what I had submitted before was not clear.(DiaEdie (talk) 04:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)) — Preceding [[Wikipedia:]] comment added by DiaEdie (talk • contribs) 00:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

added information on the history of pornography

I went an added more information. Please let me know if I am following the guidelines correctly. Thanks!(DiaEdie (talk) 04:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC))

sex tourism and and child sex tourism

Adding information and citations. Hope I am doing it correctly I am also re wording things. (DiaEdie (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC))

Recent Changes to article

@DiaEdie: @Fletchal: I'm not sure the recent changes to the article are helpful for the following reasons:

  • Whilst I realise the changes are part of a Wiki Ed "Systems of Oppression in Women's Lives" course, this article is an overview of the Sex Industry. A section on "Oppression of Women in the Sex Industry" way well be a beneficial addition. Adding individual examples in various sections is probably to detailed for this overview.
  • Street prostitution - Introducing the views of radical feminists without giving the views of other groups leaves the article unbalanced.
  • Street prostitution II - As I posted previously, the section including "Through out history; a lot of sex workers who participate in street level prostitution happen to be Black, or belong to another ethnic group; that is uneducated and impoverished due to inequity and lack of resources", may well be correct in modern day America, but is not correct in Europe or Asia. "Through out history" conflicts with the cited sources for the various articles on red-light districts in 19c America. Before say 1900, and especially in rural areas, the general public were poorly educated and prostitutes were probably no more uneducated than a seamstress for example.
  • "Its been established that women who enter the sex industry willing do so for financial gain" is unreferenced.
  • The rewritten history of pornography conflicts with the established Pornography#History
  • Pornographic representations of Black women - Very interesting subject, but would be more appropriate in the Pornography article rather than this overview.
  • Cartagena is mentioned in two section, this is probably introducing too much detail for this article.

On a more technical note:

  • There's no need to sign edits in an article, but you do need to sign them on a talk page.
  • References should be enclosed in ref tags not nowiki
  • References need to be informative, for example "(Holmstrom, 2003)" means nothing without further details.
  • Phrases such as "Colombia has Caribbean coast that is draws a lot of people to the beautiful place" and "Colombia's Cartagen beautiful beach" are more appropriate to a travel brochure.

Sorry if this all seems harsh, but as this is part of an education programme I would rather point out the problems so you can make appropriate changes rather than just revert the changes you have made. --John B123 (talk) 21:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Hmm.... The recent edits, though well-intentioned, do seem to contravene many of the basic elements of editing here. I've added a - hopefully useful - note to the relevant editor's talk page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

"Pornographic representations of Black women" section

The purpose of this section in the article is not really clear and seems a bit WP:UNDUE. There is already a section titled "Pornography" so it's not clear why there is a need for another section dealing specifically with black women. Why, for instance, can't there be also be sections titled "Pornographic representations of Asian women", "Pornographic representations of Blonde women", etc.? Most of the section seems to be relying on a single source (the link to the source, by the way, is "bad" and since it leads only to www.oxfordartonline.com which is just the publisher's general page), but is that really something warranting an entire subsection (particularly a level-2 subsection). The actual content of the section is also a bit jumbled and could use some copy editing as well. Even if cleaned up, though, it perhaps could somehow be incorporated into the "Pornography" section. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Giving feedback

I am new to this and I am trying my best to follow guidelines. Yes this is an educational course but if you are going to give feed back please do it in a constructive manner that is respectful please and thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DiaEdie (talk • contribs) 11:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi DiaEdie. I saw your post on Shalor (Wiki Ed)'s user talk page and am assuming that it is somehow related to this post here. Wikipedia does have a policy against personal attacks and experienced editors do assume good faith, particularly when dealing with newer editors who might be less familiar with Wikipedia editing. I'm not sure exactly who the "you" you're addressing in your post is, but looking at some of the comments made above, nothing really stands out as anything particularly rude or condescending. I think the comments given in #Recent Changes to article were made in good faith and were only intended to point out some things of concern. Article talk page discussions can often seem to be harsher then they are intended to be since (just like anywhere else online) you can actually see the other person making the post to get feedback from their tone, facial expressions, etc.
Looking over the article I did notice quite a number of the things mentioned in the above posts, and cleaned some of them up myself. It's OK to make mistakes and articles are not expected to be perfect since Wikipedia is a collaborative editing project where articles are constantly be improved by people from all over the world and mistakes will eventually get corrected by someone; the important thing from new editors is to not try and learn from the mistakes they might be making and try not to take things personal when others point them out.
I see you've be trying to keep others updated as to what edits you're making to the article; however, it's OK to be WP:BOLD and make edits you feel should be made as long as you do so in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You can leave an edit summary explaining why the edit was made, but you don't necessarily need to double-down and further clarify things on this talk page each and every time. If there's a problem with one of your edits, you'll find out soon enough because another editor will either fix it or revert it; if either happens and you're not sure why, then follow WP:BRD and try and sort things out on this talk page. If you're planning to make a major revision to the article, then it's OK to be WP:CAUTIOUS and try and get feedback from others before making the edit; not every edit, however, requires such advance discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I think we need some guidance from DiaEdie - or, if appropriate, from Shalor (Wiki Ed) - as to whether they are intending to edit their earlier work on the article to conform with formatting, style and other guidelines here. If not, other more experienced editors will need to edit it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Prostitution

I just added a sentence to explain where prostitution is illegal in the United States. I also wanted some clarity I was told not to sign my submissions or questions but on here it says don't forget to sign. I am confused as I was told several times not to do that but it is stated on the talk section one must do so. Please and thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DiaEdie (talk • contribs) 07:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately the information was incorrect. Prostitution in Rhode Island outlawed prostitution in 2009.
You need to sign edits on talk pages but not on other pages. --John B123 (talk) 07:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @DiaEdie: You should sign your talk page posts; you should not add your signature to any content you add to an article. So, please stop adding ( ~~~~ ) whenever you add content to the article. Please also stop adding the syntax <nowiki> as well if you're not familiar with how it works because you may unintentionally affect the formatting of the article.
As for the content you added, I'm not sure it's very helpful, at least how you tried to incorporate it, simply because the article is not only about the sex industry or prostitution in the United States; moreover, there is some mention of legal brothels in Nevada already in the section, so it's not clear how what you added is an improvement on that. Anyway, your edit has been reverted by another editor named John B123 and perhaps he will further clarify below as to why. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
I rewrote my submission in my own words. Please let me know if this was okay to add or it is redundant.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎DiaEdie (talk • contribs) 07:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
I forgot to look at the talk page as to why something got removed. I now know why. Thanks!— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎DiaEdie (talk • contribs) 07:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
And I've removed it again. As user: Marchjuly pointed out, this is not only about the status in the US. And please don't sign your article additions. Meters (talk) 07:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
@‎DiaEdie: Please try to remember to WP:SIGN your talk page posts. It's also unnecessary to create a news section every time you post something on an article talk page, especially if what you're posting is part of an ongoing discussion. For more information on how to use talk pages, please take a look at Help:Talk pages.
About the content you're trying to add, it does seem redundant since the brothels are already mentioned in a later part of that same section, and it also seems out of place in that particular location because that sentence isn't just about the US. It's OK to be WP:BOLD, but when another editor WP:REVERTs your edit, please try and follow WP:BRD and try and find out why. Simply re-adding what was removed or something close to it often can lead to edit warring which does nobody any good. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Ok I understand and I apologize. DiaEdie (talk) 08:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sex_industry/Archives/2019&oldid=1123949328"