Talk:Prostitution in Canada

message: Perhaps the articles "Prostitution in Canada" and "Prostitution Law in Canada" should be merged, as they seem to have a lot of content in common...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.249.249 (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging the Articles? 

message: If prostitution is not illegal in Canada, why do people go to jail for seeking prostitution?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.128.28.203 (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is prostitution NOT illegal in Canada? 

message: Why is pimp m/o discussed in this article? surely this is not unique to Canada--Jrm2007 (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I'm putting a neutrality tag on the last section, which seems especially biased. 72.145.218.13 (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I am checking for accuracy and have removed a number of extreme inaccuracies Mgoodyear (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

text: I have mothballed this material - more properly discussed on a page related to this subject - --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Further deletion --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: Please don't delete whole sections without some discussion. Mgoodyear (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No one "delete[d] whole sections". I removed one paragraph that was uncited and largely speculative. The whole structure of the article needs work - this "Prostitution issues by province" contains only this one subsection. Unless it's going to be fixed up soon it needs to be removed. If that's your plan it's preferable to keep it in your sandbox and work on it there, then re-add it when it's done. TJ Black (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Also, the long cut-and-paste from the Canadian civil code should probably be removed as well. The proceeding paragraph does a reasonable job of summarizing it. TJ Black (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Your latest edits are definitely an improvement. Keep up the good work! TJ Black (talk) 06:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Please do not make changes without justification and explanation. Also if you have something to say, don't hide behind anonymity Mgoodyear (talk) 01:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Would be best to reword what is above ...pls see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.01:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Etiquette

message: Ip 174.89.116.211 has made several highly problematic and disrupting edits to this article. He/she has changed the original statement "Other organisations deny any link between the legal status or extent of sex work and trafficking pointing to lack of evidence" to "Other organisations find there is no evidence linking prostitution and human trafficking" (what organization claims that there is no such thing as human trafficking for the purpose of prostitution??? source??).
He/she is adding erroneous material, he/she refered to the "Netherlands Report of the Prostitution Law Review Committee on the Operation of the Prostitution Reform Act 2003" quoted by judge Himel, when in fact the judge quoted  the "New Zealand Report of the Prostitution Law Review Committee on the Operation of the Prostitution Reform Act 2003"...New Zealand and Netherlands are not the same thing ...
He/she has repetitively added, in the begging of the Human trafficking and crime section, material which is not about trafficking in Canada, but about trafficking and prostitution in general, about how "Prostitution by willing adults is not human trafficking regardless of whether it is legalized, decriminalized or criminalized" and so on. That lengthy paragraph has been clearly added in order to push a POV, does not belong here, and is in violation of WP:SOAP.
I have a feeling that this editor is determined to do the same thing for a long period of time from now on, therefore he/she should be watched and warned.
123username (talk) 08:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Disruptive edits by 174.89.116.211

message: There seems to be an attempt on Wikipedia generally to turn every page on prostitution into a discussion on the evils of trafficking as if the two were synonymous. 
Here we have the bizarre situation where the section on trafficking in this article is much much longer than the "main" article - most of it should be removed and much of it is irrelevant Mgoodyear (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with move that was done to Human trafficking in Canada of this section.Moxy (talk) 04:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Trafficking

message: Since there seems to be an edit war, this needs addressing in text. Abolition is an ambiguous term that has changed its meaning over the years aqnd is confused with abolition of slavery - originally it meant abolition of regulationism, and now increasingly of prostitution. Experts favour prohibition as less ambiguous and conveying real meaning of prohibiting prostitution (with the intention of eradicating it) Mgoodyear (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war: Abolition or Prohibition? 

message: Somebody just made a real mess of this article with reference errors and topic headings that are illegible - it needs some major reorganization - and perhaps breakig up Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organisation 

message: This article doesn't seem to cover the Bedford/Scott/Lebovitch case, nor do we have a separate article for the case. This seems like one of the most notable issues regarding prostitution in Canada in many years. It surprises me that Wikipedia has so little information about it. I'm going to start a stub article and would appreciate any contributions from people more knowledgeable about the case than I am. -- Pburka (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bedford, Scott and Lebovitch 

message: I can see we are in some danger of posting a lot of incorrect information because of this decision - it changes nothing. We will have to wait to see about appeals, applications for extension of stays etc. The Himel decision in 2010 changed nothing either. The article is not out of date - I will remove the tag --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree - as a legal position we are currently in limbo (only in Ontario). We need to wait and see what happens next. However reporting the position of the Ontario courts should be there..as it is .Moxy (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ontario Court of Appeal Decision March 2012  

message: This entire section about prostitution and minors has taken over this topic with misleading and inaccurate so called statistics, by researchers who were prohibited by the SCC to present their reports to the SCC.    There is ample evidence that the majority of articles and researchers that remain in this topic have been discredited by their peers, as well as the SCC regarding their research.    
That is a topic that should be in an entirely different article, as it has nothing to do with actual prostitution in Canada.   Exploitation of young people is not the same thing as prostitution.   The federal laws still remain that the legal age to engage in legal prostitution is 18.    Any discussion about minors willingly or forcibly entering prostitution is a completely separate issue from adults engaging in it, and all of that should be completely removed from here.  It is hysterical, and grossly inaccurate, using numbers that have absolutely no basis in any research whatsoever.    
I can see in the Talk section that many have tried to come in to edit and correct these inaccuracies, over the years, and yet to date, there is little factual evidence and information in this section.    It is horrifying that the numbers and comments in this topic should be allowed to remain, and facts deleted or edited.    
In fact I can see that the information was added and someone above says the inaccuracies were removed.  Clearly the original posters came back in and put these faulty stats back into this article.    As the comment above notes, the math doesn't add up.  it is impossible for there to be those kinds of numbers.  One I read is that there are 500 underage sex workers on the streets (so outdoor workers) when the fact is there aren't even 500 total street sex workers in Vancouver, there couldn't possibly be that many, there would be 2 to 3 of them people on each street intersection of the downtown east side.   It's ridiculous.    That doesn't account for the over 18 years olds, and since the 'researchers' claim the underagers are a minority, then there must be 4500 of age street workers working outside on the curb of the downtown core of the city of Vancouver.    
Now, just do a drive around any day of the week and tell me you see a crowd like that anywhere anytime, and then ask yourself if there are that many on the street, there must by necessity be an equal or greater number of men seeking their services.   It's like a small city out roaming and driving around now.      — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.184.149 (talk) 07:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an issue that I have been working on over the last year, but progress is very gradual. Of greatest importance, I have found, is the language and finding reputable citations to verify content. Hopefully all of the sex work/prostitution articles in Wikipedia will be brought up to standard in 2014. Please feel free to contribute if you have access to citations.--Soulparadox (talk) 07:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

text: I apologize for not replying sooner, but I am continuing to watch this page, so will look at those URLs and will also look at more recent events. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 08:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is about Abolition in Canada 

message: In view of the large amount of legal material now available and the moving target, and the fact we have several spin off articles, we can probably consolidate and reduce the amount of legal material on this page, moving it where necessary. A key consideration as the story evolves will be to ensure all sections are consistent without unnecessary replication. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Law 

message: Given the new prostitution law, this article requires a massive overhaul.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.66.4.239 (talk) 18:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved some things around, but this is going to require more work. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I am happy to also keep working on this page. My main issue is the tone, as Wikipedia is not a forum to air grievances about the morality or nature of sex work—we are here to present verifiable information that is notable. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite needed 

message: It's in the first sentence. I don't understand the laws, but can somebody please add a clarification sentence after that? Because I don't think that would make sense to the majority of people reading.5ives (talk) 12:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extremely confusing: "illegal to purchase sexual services but legal to sell them" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Prostitution in Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090521014952/http://www.jibc.ca:80/cccs/Publications/Commercial_Sexual_Exploitation_WWY_Manual.pdf to http://www.jibc.ca/cccs/Publications/Commercial_Sexual_Exploitation_WWY_Manual.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Prostitution in Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100427015054/http://www.cbc.ca:80/canada/saskatchewan/story/2009/03/24/hiv-prostituion.html to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/story/2009/03/24/hiv-prostituion.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080629225944/http://www.cbc.ca:80/canada/story/2001/02/27/hooker_folo010227.html to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2001/02/27/hooker_folo010227.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101115031146/http://www.uwcvancouver.ca:80/about-us/advocacy-work to http://www.uwcvancouver.ca/about-us/advocacy-work
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Prostitution in Canada. 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/20140118201244/http://www.sexworkersallianceireland.org/frequently.html to http://www.sexworkersallianceireland.org/frequently.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1990/1990scr1-1123/1990scr1-1123.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.canada.com/news/Canadian%2Bprostitutes%2Btraining%2BOlympics/1616195/story.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=c1e6d15c-21d9-4619-ada5-f954a0367129
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ecpat.net/ei/Result_onlineDatabase.asp?country=31&CountryProfile=1%2C0%2C0&ProfileCommercial=0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C0&ImplementActions=0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C0&NationalPlans=0&organisationsWorking=0&selectedCategory=fact&display=country
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://child-abuse.com/childhouse/childwatch/cwi/projects/indicators/prostitution/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=79c4fb0c-0ae7-472f-8e38-ba7e964b90bb&k=87969
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511060456/http://www.firstadvocates.org/ to http://www.firstadvocates.org/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222202801/http://www.nswp.org/news-story/canada-v-bedford-%E2%80%93-the-immediate-aftermath to http://www.nswp.org/news-story/canada-v-bedford-%E2%80%93-the-immediate-aftermath
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110514045035/http://www.unpac.ca/economy/g_migration.html to http://www.unpac.ca/economy/g_migration.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion was closed as keep. --John B123 (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: Like the post above in 2016 that was never answered, this is contradictory and utter nonsense:
"make it illegal to purchase or advertise sexual services and illegal to live on the material benefits from sex work. Although it is legal to sell sexual services,"
Please explain or even better rewrite this to make sense.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:5C03:400:BD2E:AC7A:B4D9:FBCC (talk) 01:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradicting