Template talk:Prostitution in Canada

Should the organization subsections be renamed to something more neutral and accurate, such as "pro-legalization" and "pro-prohibition"? Haminoon (talk) 07:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose given the current context. Being pro- or anti-prostitution doesn't imply being pro- or anti-legalization, one way or the other. For several of the listed organizations it's not all that clear what the organization's stance is on the criminality of prostitution, or even if they do take a stance one way or the other. For example, Deborah's Gate (listed under anti-prostitution) is an organization which supports sex workers who wish to exit the industry, but that doesn't necessarily imply that they support prohibition of prostitution. They might, or they might not, but they can do their work either way. We're putting them into a category which might not apply to them. I actually think the template would be better off (and more neutral) if the "pro-" and "anti-" subheaders were removed altogether, and organizations simply listed without further categorization. Ivanvector (talk) 04:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the current format has organizations categorized based on their stance on human trafficking, which is very strongly related to but still distinct from prostitution - not all prostitution is a result of trafficking. It's possible to be pro-prostitution and also anti-trafficking, such as favouring legal status and social benefits extended to sex workers but opposing forced prostitution and sexual slavery. The template should be clear on what it's categorizing. Ivanvector (talk) 04:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Ivan. I'm happy for the sub-headings to be removed too. Haminoon (talk) 06:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and just follow the cites. Use an organizations self-category label, like abortion has "pro-choice" and "pro-life", if they world has them, so you've got the same terms the world uses. If there are more than two sides or have no particular labels then that is what you portray instead. I'll point out that principles of WP:TRUTH or WP:VERIFIABILITY are also functionally helpful because using the same label as outside does makes it easier for folks to find the article and for editors to find and convey cite material. Markbassett (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any suggestions to replace them? I can't find any labels that would bring together such disparate groups. Its a bit more complex then "pro-choice" and "pro-life". Would you be happy with Ivan's suggestion above of leaving the organizations without further categorization? Haminoon (talk) 12:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haminoon The suggestion was to follow the cites -- if you can't find any labels used to join individual organizations, and they actually do not work together or have shared basis, then one generic such as "Involved groups" seems fine.. Markbassett (talk) 04:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Personally I think it's better as it is, Plus it just makes more sense IMHO, Not really seeing any advantages to renaming them.... –Davey2010^Talk 05:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: What exactly does "pro-prostitution" even mean? That the person likes to procure the services of prostitutes? That they number prostitutes among their friends? Ditto anti-prostitution. As another commenter pointed out, this is like "pro-life" and "pro-choice" but those are troublesome terms for similar reasons. It is entirely possible to consider prostitution a blight on women and society and yet still believe it should be legal if people want to do it. I'd say the "pro-legalization" and "pro-prohibition" (hmm -- should that just be "pro-hibition") are clearer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:F340:A500:163:4DF7:350:C931 (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But again, there is no reason to believe that every listed organization takes a stance on that. I have to assume for example that North Preston's Finest would continue to operate whether prostitution was legal or not. Ivanvector (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, merge, and rename – It's not clear that the members of the groups are "pro-legalization" and "pro-prohibition." I would favour merging the two categories under the heading "Interest groups" and (possibly) moving North Preston's Finest to the "Other" section, depending on if it can be decided that they are an interest group. I would say no myself.  DiscantX 07:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy with this and it appears Ivanvector is as well. Since others have noted problems with the status quo, are we reaching consensus on this? Haminoon (talk) 09:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that seems fine. I don't think it's necessary to move NPF out, they're a kind of interest group. Ivanvector (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Paging @Haminoon:, @Ivanvector:, @Markbassett:, @Davey2010:, @2605:6000:F340:A500:163:4DF7:350:C931:

Well, now that the RfC tag has been removed by the bot, can we call the issue resolved? Merge into one section called Interest groups? If no one objects I'm going to go ahead with this.  DiscantX 08:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there's a rough consensus to remove the headers, but of course I'm involved. You could ask for a close review at WP:ANRFC if you think it's fuzzy. I think you can probably just go ahead and do it, though, if nobody objects. Ivanvector (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure its safe to merge into one section now. Thanks, Haminoon (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I have gone ahead with it, thanks.  DiscantX 00:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just ignorant outsider giving inputs -- I viewed it literally as named "Request For Comment" rather than Request For Consensus so figure outside thoughts are being sought, and goal is to jointly articulate a shared view of the question and take a break, then get new ideas whose merits will be weighted -- or get confirmation nobody else has any new ideas. Where requestor and article go with the inputs I feel I should leave up to those editing in order to keep my outsider status. I just hope there was some substance to weigh in the explanations, and that it helps draw editors together. Markbassett (talk) 04:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Markbassett, it is a Request for Comment, nothing more. When I was asking if we had consensus I merely meant that if anyone has any final objections, speak now. When the decision is made in one of these RfCs to change something, someone actually has to go ahead and make the change, so I was just making sure everyone had a chance to say what they wanted to before I went ahead with it.

You, by the way, are no more an outsider than anyone else here. Wikipedia is meant to be built by everyone, so your opinion holds as much merit as mine or anyone elses.  DiscantX 20:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]