Talk:Prostitution in Australia

newspaper article external links and I AM NOT A LAWYER

I've wikified and edited and practically rewritten the whole article, but have left the lnks alone. I'm not sure if the links to articles are relevant to a wikipedia article. what do others think? I've also made it very legally based- nothing much more than a re phrasing of a few articlees summarising legalities elsewhere. anyone care to elaborate on the sociological, historical etc issues, i think that would help a lot. I'm not a lawyer, and may have missed crucial bits.WotherspoonSmith 14:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have added in some historical background, but there is an extensive sociological literature Mgoodyear (talk) 18:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Map needs to be updated

The map does not reflect the reality of prostitution being decriminalized in New South Wales and the Northern Territory; Victoria will also see sex work fully decriminalized by December 2023. Desmond Ravenstone (talk) 01:18, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Australian Capitol Territory

You guys missed the Australian Capital Territory 150.203.110.110 (talk) 01:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

fixed Mgoodyear (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Organisation

It may eventually be necessary to create separate pages by jurisdiction, with summaries on the main page. With such different systems in each part of the country, footnotes should probably indicate which State or territory they apply to. (I have done this for all notes to date) Mgoodyear (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see why we need a discussion of prostitution laws around the world in the first section - I suggest it be removed or moved to a general article on prostitution Mgoodyear (talk) 22:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Do it SatuSuro 23:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

References

Unfortunately switching embedded external refs to footnotes creates a new problem, the links will all have to be converted from URLs to titles. I fixed a few Mgoodyear (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

External links need cleaning up too Mgoodyear (talk) 02:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Legality

There seems to be a little bit of discussion at the moment on the legality of prostitution in Australia. When I have time I will reference it, but for the moment my understanding is that there is a general prohibition on prostitution, except in the limited circumstances outlined in the article (i.e. at registered brothels). Comments welcome VeryRusty (talk) 06:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• This document [[1]] while old, appears to have a good summary of the legality/illegality of prostitution. My conclusion is that while in some states an individual arrangement may not be illegal, that many of the related activities (advertising, finding a location, etc.) are in fact illegal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VeryRusty (talk • contribs) 06:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Split article

This article should be split, with the intro, the sections "History", "Health" and "Human trafficking in Australia" remaining part of this article, and each state/territory being moved to its own new article. eg Prostitution in New South Wales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:50C:DC01 (talk) 04:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe. As a long term contributor to this page, I am asking you for a rationale, since what happens in the various jurisdictions influence each other and the references and sources often include multiple jurisdictions. I will see what other contributors have to say. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Mgoodyear for the reason he states. There could be a reason for the split if there was too much redundancy, but I notice careful attention was made to avoid it. By the way, my congratulation to him for his effort to make this article POV free. I think that the references sections should be consolidated into one. That would make the article seem less like the article has been merged. Apart from that, it is a well written and coherent article that would not benefit from splitting at this time. Op47 (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

possible Drive-by Tagging / ☠ Tag-bombing ☠ (May 2014) = ☹ Suggestion

The apparent "tag-bombing"/over-tagging of the article in May 2014 by 14x barnstar-recipient User:Soulparadox w/ zero recent/relevant discussion here on the talk page is disappointing and frustrating, even if done in good faith. The adding of tags wasn't even mentioned in any edit summaries, as far as I could tell, and I had to search through diffs in order to find the version when the tag-bomb detonated!

The Multiple Issues combined box appeared with rev. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prostitution_in_Australia&direction=next&oldid=607143539 accompanied by an edit summary that made no mention of the aggressive tagging that had just been carried out: "(Complete revision for consistency with other Wikipedia articles, removal of excessive repetition, improved grammar, syntax, and punctuation, and template)"!

Elsewhere on Wikipedia it's been written concerning over-tagging that it's rare for two or three tags to be justifiably needed even on the worst articles, yet here we have, what - almost a half-dozen?!

Interested editors who could've contributed & made improvements to the article that may have negated the alleged justification for such over-the-top tagging were denied the opportunity to do so when good-faith assuming Soulparadox decided NOT to discuss ANY of their specific concerns motivating the drive-by tagging via the Talk Page (contrary to accepted and best practices). They simply pasted-up all those tags, well-intentioned or not, despite Wikipedia reminding us to:

"...keep in mind that other people who might be interested in fixing the problem (or who might dispute the tag) might not immediately see the same problems you do. Even if the problem seems obvious, it's useful to leave a short note on the talk page describing the issue, and suggesting an approach to fixing it if you know how... Especially in the case of a tag such as {{npov}}, complaints left at a talkpage need to be actionable, so that editors can attempt to address them. It is not helpful to say simply "The article is biased." Instead, some current details should be given to help other editors understand what needs to be fixed or discussed..."

The failure to observe this simple courtesy is confusing if one accepts that:

"It is best to provide the fewest number of the most specific possible tags. Placing too many tags on an article is "tag-bombing", disruptive, or may be a violation of Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Placing vague tags on articles results in confusion and discouragement more often than it results in improving the encyclopedia. Placing tags is, in itself, not a means of improving the encyclopedia: It is only a means of asking other people to improve an article that you cannot or will not improve yourself." "Tag bombing is the unjustified addition of numerous tags to pages or unjustified addition of one tag to multiple pages. Tag bombing is a form of disruptive editing. Adding tags to articles should be accompanied by sufficient reasoning on the tagged article's talk page (or in a "reason" parameter where one exists) to explain why the tags are needed."

So in the future, we should all remember to please:

• Avoid tagging articles if you can easily and confidently fix the problem. The goal is an improved article, not a tagged article.
• Avoid "drive-by" tagging: tags should be accompanied by a comment on the article's talk page explaining the problem and beginning a discussion on how to fix it, or, for simpler problems, a remark using the reason parameter...
• Don’t insert tags that are similar or redundant. ...
• If an article has many problems, tag only the highest priority issues. A lengthy list is often less helpful than a shorter one.
• Don't add tags for trivial or minor problems, especially if an article needs a lot of work...Focus on the biggest one, two, or three problems.

It might still be helpful for Soulparadox to return and explain the specific problems that they believe are so serious as to require such aggressive tag-bombing... JDanek007^Talk 19:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Even though, in the absence of evidence and discussion, it would be acceptable for me to remove the tags I object to (all of them, but especially the unsubstantiated {{POV}} tag), per the following, I will refrain from doing so pending a response from other editors...

Anyone who sees a tag, but does not see the purported problem with the article and does not see any detailed complaint on the talk page, may remove the tag. Except in very obvious cases (such as removing {{Uncategorized}} from an article that has been categorized), it may be wise to place a note on the talk page explaining the removal and to identify your action in an appropriately detailed edit summary. It is often the case that even after the initial problem causing the tag is fixed, the tag is accidentally left in place. Sometimes problems are solved by inexperienced editors, who incorrectly believe that they must wait for an authority figure to remove the official-looking template. Perhaps the person leaving the tag simply made a bad judgment call, or accidentally linked to the wrong template.

If the person placing the tag has explained his or her concerns on the talk page, then anyone who disagrees should join the discussion and explain why the tag seems inappropriate. If there is no reply within a reasonable amount of time (a few days), the tag can be removed. If there is disagreement, then normal talk page discussion should proceed, per consensus-building.

And I want to be very clear that what I've said above in no way constitutes a personal attack on Soulparadox, who I do not know and have never met.

So...looking forward to hearing from others... JDanek007^Talk 20:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Way overtagged. I have not bothered to look at who placed what when, but the article-wide citation needed tag is nonsense. Most of the article is very well referenced, and there is no need to tag possibly questionable sentences, the sections containing them, and the article with citation needed. Some of the individual citation needed tags seem a bit much to me, but that's a matter of opinion and I wouldn't argue against them. I don't see a need for the tone tag, and certainly not the unclear citation style tag. The neutrality tag has been up for 3 months but I see nothing on the talk page to justify it and I don't see an obvious problem in the article. As for the copy editing tag, I didn't proof the entire document, but the parts I read seemed fine. Meters (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply and the feedback, Meters. In absence of discussion here and evidence, I don't favor keeping any of the top-level article clean-up tags currently grouped in the multi-template box at start of article. I would like to delete all of those clean up tags with the understand that they can be re-added w/ consensus, after a discussion here. Sub-heading clean-up tags would have to be reviewed individually, as some could certainly be valid, like those for sections devoid of any citations for material that should be cited - if that situation exists. I'll wait to hear back from you and hopefully others before deleting the article clean-up tags, however. Would you favor removing the sub-section tags if no evidence or explanation to support them is forthcoming? Cheers. JDanek007^Talk 00:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the notification and the unequivocal discussion on this page, as I feel clear about the issues, including those related to me, and I need to reaffirm that my revision of the page was done without any harmful intentions. Additionally, due to the intensive effort of Jdanek, I have learnt some important points—this has occurred before, when I have been engaged in similar discussions. Again, thank you to all of the copyeditors who have contributed, as you have made your points unambiguous and clear. Funnily enough, this article came after a copyeditor questioned why I inserted a citation template on the Nick Cave article without tagging the particular sections in question—so I was actually trying to improve on past practice and now I find myself in another discussion! Anyway, that is less a complaint, and more a very brief explanation of the background to my editing style for this article. My plan was to revisit the article to address the tags, template issues, etc., but I just haven't got there yet—I think that issues such as this, which are political or biographical, really need to have all factual assertions backed up by fact; unless, of course, it is obvious that the content does not require substantiation. For example, in the Nick Cave article, statements of fact (one of which involved attributing credit to someone for a musical work) was not cited. Given the large number of people who use Wikipedia for factual information, I have become strict—maybe overly so—with this type of content. I am very happy to continue after JDanek007^Talk makes the necessary changes, and will, of course, incorporate the tag-related learning that I have gained today in my future edits. I have never been called a "tag-bomber" before, but please rest assured that "bombing" the article was not my intention! Thanks again and I will revisit the article at a later stage to see what I can continue with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulparadox (talk • contribs) 03:31 June 1, 2014‎

I think that all of the top level tags can go. I believe all of the section tags are for no or insufficient sources. It's a bit confusing when they are applied to sections that also contained well-referenced subsections, but I guess we have to interpret "section" as excluding any contained subsections. That's just a result of the wording of the available tags. I think many of the section tags can go, since they seem redundant. There's not much point in putting citation needed tags on individual facts and also tagging the section as a whole. Some sections have no citation needed tags and are tagged at the section level, and that's fine. The " Early period" subsection of "Western Australia History" is a good example. Statements such as, "Prostitution in Western Australia has been intimately tied to the history of gold mining. In these areas a quasi-official arrangement existed between premise owners and the authorities." need references.

Note that some of the citation needed tags are excessive. For instance, the "Economica and gender" subsection of "Current Situation" starts off with, "In a 2005 study Mary Sullivan of the CATW[134] stated ..." The citation is to the study, not that Sullivan works for the CATW. (And yes, it should be after punctuation.) Three of the four following paragraphs clearly refer to that cited study, but are tagged as needing citations. It seems obvious to me that paragraphs that start "She stated that ..." "Sullivan's study states that ..." and "Finally she states that ..." refer to the same study and don't need further citations. Meters (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to Meters (talk), I feel I can improve this article further. Your explanation is clear, unambiguous and helpful. Thank you! I just need to make the time now :-)--Soulparadox (talk) 07:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

As a major contributor to this page (and related pages) over the years, I suggest removing the tags which are unhelpful, and we can continue to discuss any needed improvements here. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 08:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Done, next question is what appears to be over use of citation tagging - probably of my prose, and probably because I had already referenced it and provided the bibliography. It is not as if there are outrageous statements in the text which is pretty factual. Incidentally this section is now overlong - let's start afresh. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 08:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Tagging, citation, etc. (cont. from previous section)

In accordance with the final comment from the last section, I have started a new discussion thread.

Thanks for the contribution Michael Goodyear (talk). I don't know of any claim in which the content was described as "outrageous", but that is not my belief if I have mistakenly used the adjective. You will see from earlier in the last section that my position is that such Wikipedia pages, which are essentially political in nature, require citations for factual statements and assertions, so that readers can be confident in the evidence base—if one exists—that underpins content in articles covering topics with a high level of significance. The current news from Canada, in addition to the news from earlier in the year regarding Mary Honeyball and the Nordic model of prostitution, are examples of the subject's current prominence in global affairs. I have not reviewed the article's content in several months, so I will need to revisit it, but I am very willing to collaborate, which is another reason I thanked you for contributing (in addition to helping with progress). I do not wish to engage in the "video game"-style argumentativeness that critics of Wikipedia have talked about in the media, so let's just get on with further enhancing the article. --Soulparadox (talk) 11:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I only meant that it looks pretty factual to me and I have tried very hard to keep it that way. I don't know you, but are you a member of of the sex work task force here? I maintain many of the prostitution by country articles and coordinate the global research network, so yes I am fully aware of the issues. To be fair I was not all that happy with recent revisions, for instance i went to the first tag - History, which is all from Roberta Perkins. The reason it has so many tags is because someone split it into smaller paragraphs, although all the content was referenced to her. I didn't see the new wording as any improvement. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I tidied that up to start with --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

References

Soulparadox, was it you that reversed my decision to place all the references regardless of context at the end? That's a pretty major decision change, and should have been discussed here. It makes it much harder to deal with the individual States - although someone had suggested splitting the article up into States. The ability to group references in Wikipedia was designed with good reason. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Mention of "attitudes" in lead

There is a fairly bold statement in the lead that Australia is largely old fashioned in its attitude to prostitution which I cannot see cited with a source anywhere in the body of the article. I would guess that there would be scientific surveys of public sentiment around sex work, so if such an attitude has been found, a reference for it can be found too. (Although characterising any attitudes as "old fashioned" may present NPOV or WP:OR issues, unless the source itself actually says that, or something very like it.) Editors who know their way around these subject areas may be able to locate something, or suggest a place to start, perhaps? If the statement remains unreferenced, I think its removal in the near future would be justified. I'd be interested in others' views. Thanks 49.177.69.7 (talk) 03:29, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Realised that the above phrase replaced a far less judgemental / editorialising statement. It was altered from Australia is largely homogenous in its attitude to prostitution only in May. This earlier wording is less of a worry, although it would still be best practice to have the assertion mentioned and sourced in the body of the article. I can see there's a useful point in including the statement, to contrast the relatively uniform attitude to sex work in different parts of Australia with the rather varied approaches by jurisdiction. It is also a rather less surprising (and POV) statement!

By the way, I did replace homogenous in the original phrasing with homogeneous. They're often used a bit loosely now, but technically "homogenous" is only supposed to be for genetic similarity, or "corresponding in structure because of a common origin" similar to "homologous". Homogeneous is when things are "congruous, alike in constitution, of uniform nature or character throughout", which is what is meant here. Or maybe I'm just too antique in my usage! This is what WP says, though: Homogeneity and heterogeneity#Etymology and spelling, and on wikt:homogeneous. (Not given as references, just explanatory.) 49.177.69.7 (talk) 06:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC) Never mind. Other editor changed, avoiding this sentence altogether. Cheers. 49.177.69.7 (talk) 12:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Victoria needs updating, map should change from 1 December 2023

The section on Victoria needs updating, possibly reducing as well, seems a bit like WP:EXCESSDETAIL and detail that is no longer relevant anyway. You could make a point to just WP:TNT the entire section and start again, cherry picking from the old section. In terms of the map, Victoria needs to be changed blue after 1 December 2023. I have updated the lead, but the section still needs updating MarkiPoli (talk) 11:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Mistake: the ACT has not decriminalised sex work

The image and the first section states that the ACT has decriminalised sex work but it is legalised, not decriminalised. The reference that has been used to say it is decriminalised (https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/the-legal-status-of-sex-work-across-australia/) does not support what is written, and clearly categorized the ACT under legalised. The image and the text need updating. Date: 30/04/24 AusGayLaws (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)