Talk:Abolition of Prostitution

Severely POV content
While an article on prostitution abolitionism is a valid subject for a Wikipedia article, using this topic as a coatrack for stating the claims made by the neo-abolitionists about the nature of prostitution as undisputed, researched fact is simply unacceptable, and a complete violation of WP:NPOV and WP:CONTROVERSY. Although the first several sections of the article are mostly descriptive in nature, everything from "Prostitution As/And Violence Against Women" forward reads as simply propaganda for abolitionist claims about and positions on prostitution. Additionally, much of the content of this article is really not about the prostitution abolitionist movement per se, but about prostitution itself, albeit from an unabashedly neo-abolitionist point of view. This segregating material out from the larger topic to put a particular spin on it makes much of this article a POV fork.

As with any article on a controversial political movement, the views and claims of the movement as well as the views of its critics must be described neutrally, without either advocacy or attack on either view. Controversial factual claims must always be put into context. None of this has been done here.

I will also note that for all of the length of this article, it actually fails to provide a history of this movement, or much historical context at all. A history of prostitution abolitionism would certainly be a welcome and needed addition to Wikipedia. This could cover everything from its founding by Josephine Butler and allies, through the activities of the International Abolitionist Federation, to the revival of the abolitionist perspective by Kathleen Barry and other radical feminists, to the current evangelical/feminist prostitution abolitionist movement and its influence on legislation, and controversies along the way. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I did suggest a separate page on this topic, after removing comments about abolitionism in general from a prostitution by country article. As the above editor comments - it is important to make clear what is undisputed fact, from an account of abolitionism and its literature. That way the reader knows they are learning about the abolitionist movement and what it claims, from prostitution in general, for which there are many other pages. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This article is a total joke. Printing all of this without allowing any kind of rebuttal or opposing point of view is totally inappropriate.  The original author is clearly biased and in favor of "abolition".  I can't believe this was ever even allowed to appear on the internet under wikipedia's name.  Shameful! 175.100.127.66 (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

AFD consensus to merge and redirection
There is no consensus to redirect or delete this article. The consensus in the AFD discussion is to merge. Wikipedia's Guide to Deletion in response to AFD outcomes specifically states, "Merge is a recommendation to keep the article's content but to move it into some more appropriate article. It is either inappropriate or insufficient for a stand-alone article. After the merger, the article will be replaced with a redirect to the target article (in order to preserve the attribution history)." Administrative actions direct us to mark both pages by adding Afd-mergeto and Afd-mergefrom to the top of their respective pages. Upon removing the afd notice (if still present), add the Afd-merge to tag to the top of the nominated article. This lets as many users involved in those pages know that content is to be merged as a result of a deletion discussion. It is the involved editors' job, rather than the closing administrators' job to perform the merger. The appropriate response when an AFD consensus results in a merge is not to circumvent the deletion policy and process guidelines through redirection or deletion. In accordance with the AFD consensus and administrative guidelines, the reinstatement of the redirection is inappropriate. Therefore, I have restored the article in compliance with community guidelines. The action to redirect prior to merging is ill advised and contrary to the deletion process. Throughout this week, I will continue to work on merging the two articles. After the merge is complete, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, I will redirect the article. If anyone has questions during this time, please feel free to contact me. Best regards,  Cind. amuse  08:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the community consensus was that this article in its present form is no suitable for inclusion on wikipedia. You've had 2 months to address that and do any appropriate merging, but haven't done anything. Continuing to resist the redirect is deliberately gaming the system to prevent that removal. If you do intend to merge material from this page, you can do so from the archived versions. This is your final warning to desist from your disruptive and POV-pushing activities. TJ Black (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Consensus was made in the AFD to merge. This process is presented in my comment above. Your assertions are not supported through Wikipedia policy and guidelines. The only point of view that I have here is compliance with policy and guidelines. Your actions are in violation of community consensus. Regards,  Cind. amuse  07:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no need to have the article up in public view—none at all. Consensus was to delete it by merging. Comments leading to consensus made it clear that very little was considered salvageable, and that very little text would be merged. Your position is not supported. Binksternet (talk) 08:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Need is subjective. Your position is not supported by Wikipedia policy and guidelines. The consensus was not to delete, but to merge. Your interpretation is not important. Compliance is. To that end, I am working on the merge. Your "position" is hindering that process.  Cind. amuse  11:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The consensus was also that very little of this article was actually usable, that it was essentially a POV essay, and that what was salvageable from the article should be merged. I see no need to keep the article up until merger. However, if you feel this step must absolutely be taken prior to merger, then I will plan on a severe trimming of this article down to only its most usable content, followed by a merger. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 21:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)