Talk:List of prostitutes and courtesans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.
Sexology and sexuality
Sexuality Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
List This page is a list and does not require a rating on the quality scale.
NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the Sex work task force.

What are the biblical figures doing in the real-life and historical list? Shouldn't they be in the fictional list?

Would you refer to Sophocles as a fictional or historical figure? Would you refer to Jesus as a fictional or historical figure? Most of pre-modern times force us to trust books as more or less true. Hence, the inclusion of Biblical figures. Otherwise, any history about any figure before the modern era could be called completely into question. -- User:Avengerx 5 OCT 05


Just wondering: Is this theoretically an exclusively female list? (and therefore warrants Category:Lists of women? - snoyes 09:15, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good question. At least for now it is, so it does (IMO). -- User:Docu
Nothing precludes adding Category:Lists of men also. Still, my preference would be to have separate lists for women and men — solely because it removes one subgroup from an already complicated breakdown. (See below.) ChrisWinter 17:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Elizabeth Short

A report by the district attorney's office to the Los Angeles County Grand Jury states that Elizabeth Short was not a prostitute. hence the deletion. [unregistered user on IP 68.164.232.70]

Perhaps I still don't get what you are driving at. Short was listed as an alleged prostitute. It has been alleged that she was a prosititute. The claim of a DA that she wasn't doesn't change the fact that the allegations have been made. As a point of comparison, Mary Magdalene is listed in this same section, and it's quite clear from the biblical texts that she was not the other woman mentioned who had sinned and that some assumed was a prostitute. But the allegations remain, and so that's why she is listed. I don't see how The Black Dahlia should be any different. DreamGuy 22:54, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Well look, perhaps I'm the one missing the point, but I assumed that there would be some interest in whether these allegations (or any others) are true. Using what I take to be the line of reasoning you're presenting (and forgive me if I'm wrong), Marilyn Monroe should be listed as well, since Ted Jordan's book Norma Jean: My Secret Life With Marilyn Monroe says she was a prostitute. Are the allegations true? Well they have certainly been dismissed by anyone who has studied Monroe. Nonetheless, the allegations were made. So if the only criterion is the existence of allegations, she would be listed. If the truthfulness of the allegations was taken into account she would not.

The same is true of Elizabeth Short. If the existence of lurid allegations is the only criterion, I suppose she would be listed. If their truthfulness carries any weight, they would not.

I admit I am not familiar with the DA statement, by I don't understand how someone writing that they didn;t think she was a prostitute can be elevated to proof that she was not. You talk about truthfulness, but what exactly about it makes you so sure she wasn't a prostitute? It sounds like just an opinion of one side at this point. But at any rate, I think it's not just any allegations but how many allegations and how widespread they are that should determine whether someone should be listed here. Mary Magdalene's allegations are extremely widespread of much historical importance, Marilyn Monroe's much less so, Elizabeth Short probably somewhere in between. DreamGuy 13:48, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Alleged male prostitutes

Section removed per WP:BLP.Crockspot 16:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cite sources

I think ever name on this list needs a proper citation, especially for living persons (per WP:LIVING). This is an extremely deragatory category to put somebody in. So, it's essential we're certain. Any names without a citation will need to be removed. --Rob 04:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me... many of these are historical and undeniable. Modern ones I would say yes, citation would be good, but then the citations should be in the article about that person instead of here. And blindingly removing all alleged prostitutes, as you took it upon yourself to do, is just plain insane. Mary Magdalene? Hugely historical alleged prostitute. Catherine Eddowes? Suspected of being so in well more than 200 books. Elizabeth Short? Accused in tons of books. You need to take a step back and use some common sense instead of lashing out with some hugely overwrought kneejerk reaction. DreamGuy 06:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I was enforcing policy. You're violating it. I'll hope others will remove it (I won't do a straight revert). This is why Wikipedia is filled with so much unreliable information. --Rob 07:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I see removing some uncited redlinks caused articles to be made with sources (added back as blue). Good. I know I was successful. I will continue to remove any unsourced material. I suggest much time wasting could be avoided if people added soources in the first place. I won't at the moment re-remove all uncited claims here, but they will be removed eventually. So, I suggest get working on adding sources. Also, as a note, its not ok just to mention a book. A specific page number will be needed (unless the whole book is about the one person and their being a prostitute). I think there is now an understanding that never again will adding unsourced names to this list be allowed.--Rob 23:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yoko Ono

Goldman as a source? Pretty dubious. Not exactly known as a scholarly and even-handed biographer. - Jmabel | Talk 05:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

That's why Yoko is in the "alleged" section rather than the confirmed section.
I agree, I have read elsewhere she was a prostitute. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.253.128.88 (talk) 02:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Anybody can make an allegation. Do we want to report every unconfirmed claim? Runcorn 18:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cite your sources.

You cannot, cannot, cannot accuse someone of being a prostitute without citing your sources. Earlier on this discussion page, User:Dream Guy says "You've got to be kidding me... many of these are historical and undeniable." Great. If they're so undeniable, it should be very easy for you to take a few minutes to do a simple Google search and obtain sources for these statements. wikipediatrix 02:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Might I suggest that if you are interested in improving the citations here, most of these are linked to Wikipedia articles, which presumably should cite their sources. - Jmabel | Talk 18:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I've checked. They don't. Not the ones I've removed, anyway. wikipediatrix 05:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Further, the generic request for sources doesn't amount to much; e.g. what can one say about "Nately's Whore" in Catch-22: the character's name attests to her profession (ditto Orr's whore, oddly unmentioned). Similarly, Xaviera Hollander is famous precisely for being a prostitute and writing about it. Ditto Carol Leigh. Christine Keeler is famous precisely as the prostitute in the Profumo Affair. Could someone please indicate which of these they have doubts about? It is a lot easier to satisfy specific requests for citation than something this open-ended. - Jmabel | Talk 00:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Per Jimbo's "living people" directive, ALL potentially libelous unsourced claims about living persons must be removed until properly sourced. Period. If you honestly can't figure out how to provide a citable source for someone as obvious as Xaviera Hollander, you're not trying hard enough. wikipediatrix 05:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sure I could, if this article were a priority for me. I've made, what, half a dozen relatively minor edits here? I'm sure you could find it easily, too; the fact that you haven't indicates that it's not a priority for you, either, which is fine. But to get back to "Nately's Whore" and "Orr's Whore": what further citation can possibly be given for the profession of characters whose name gives their profession? It's not like either Heller wrote, or anyone else would have bothered to write "Nately's Whore is a prostitute". It's like asking for a citation that George Washington's first name was George! - Jmabel | Talk 00:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, when it comes to citing sources, the burden of proof lies with the person adding the info, not the person deleting it. Secondly, I never mentioned the Catch-22 characters, that was something you brought to the conversation. The question isn't that I doubt the character of "Orr's whore" exists, the question is why it needs to be here. There are prostitutes in tens of thousands of books, movies, and TV shows, but they obviously can't all be listed here. How do we decide? Are the Catch-22 whores more notable or less notable than the ones in, say, Apocalypse Now and Full Metal Jacket? How do we decide? wikipediatrix 01:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Right, and I'm not even arguing for the notability of "Nately's Whore" and "Orr's Whore". I'm just pointing out that some things can be totally, incontrovertibly obvious, but extremely hard to cite for formally if someone wishes to deny the obvious. I agree that most material here needs better citation, even if I'm not interested enough in the page to be the one who takes much of it on. - Jmabel | Talk 21:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Distinguishing courtesan from prostitute

The title of the list treats these as distinct. However, the fictional list lumps them together with no indication of differentiation. In my opinion prostitutes are different enough from courtesans that it is important to distinguish them (as far as possible; I recognize that this may be difficult in specific cases.) I also advocate removing the fictional entries entirely and putting them in their own list. The reason is that the criteria for notability are different. It seems to me that a prostitute in a fictional work would be notable only as a principal character (e.g. Jane Fonda's character in Klute.) In the real world, "bit players" may still be notable. Examples are Christine Keeler and Jeff Gannon. If the second term of the Bush administration were a novel, would Jeff Gannon be notable enough to include here? Not in my opinion. ChrisWinter 17:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Noncompliance

WP:BLP rules are very rigid. This article is a minefield of liability, as it lists living persons as prostitutes, with little, no, or very weak sourcing. Even this talk page is noncompliant. Crockspot 05:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Each and every entry in that list that does not include a highly reliable source needs to be deleted immediately. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BLP

Given that the material cited for Gannon was apparently considered insufficient for inclusion, per WP:BLP, then obviously the living people for whom no citation at all has been provided here should be removed (which I have now done). This included removing several that I myself had initially added to the page. I continue to hold the opinion that this standard is ridiculous, because truth is a sufficient defense under libel law, but, as an administrator, I'm more or less bound to enforce the rules or quit. - Jmabel | Talk 23:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is my removal. I would welcome solid citation and restoration for any of these. Some should not be too hard: I would guess that most of these people have either worked legally and openly as prostitutes, been criminally convicted of prostitution, or have written about working as a prostitute themselves. - Jmabel | Talk 23:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cut from Symbolic or allegorical

Cut from the section on Symbolic or allegorical prostitutes: "The Lost Daughter of Happiness by Geling Yan". I'm not sure whether or not this is an important enough fictional prostitute to be in the article somewhere, but I believe it was at least misplaced, since the book is about a literal prostitute, not a symbolic or allegorical prostitute. - Jmabel | Talk 04:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)