Talk:Red-light district
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Red-light district, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Etymology
[1] has a slightly different etymology:
- The main line came up from the south by passing through a block long tunnel between Ferry and Congress Streets. The rowhouses around here soon were filled with women who entertained the railroad workers for a price. The trainmen would leave a lite red lantern hanging from in the window of the house they were in, so the crew-caller could locate them when their train was ready to depart. From the sheer number of red lanterns came the name "red light district."
Is this incorrect, or is this article incorrect? --SPUI (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
-
- This is the version I've heard too (the one above). Cribananda 04:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Interestingly?
I don't see how the statement that the japanese translation of red-light district means red line. Only thing I could think of is that prostitution crosses a line, the red line? I doubt this is how it is interesting. Could somebody clarify this or if it really isn't noteworthy then remove the interestingly part as it is misleading and leads to confusion.Bubbleboys 18:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I assume the interesting thing is that two completely different cultures independently came up with a similar name for the same thing, wouldn't you think? -- Necrothesp 22:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, so that's what's interesting. I was under the impression that the term for redlight district in Japanese was created after European contact had been made.Bubbleboys 16:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- Japanese police used draw red lines on maps to indicate the areas of prostitution.DDK 23:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- DDK is correct. Japanese police drew red-line for legal areas and blue-line for non-legal area. I added some info. If not so interesting, pls remove.Aoisola 9:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ordering?
Is there a wikipedia policy that it's alphabetical order by country? If not, I'd suggest that ordering by country/nation first, then city/town would make more sense. mr_Handy 03:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Qualify?
Does Aleksis Kivenkatu, Helsinki, Finland qualify as a red-light district? There are no brothels there, but there are often Russian prostitutes on the streets, looking for potential customers. — JIP | Talk 10:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
- If it's known as a place frequented by prostitutes then yes, it's a red-light district, whether there are brothels or not. -- Necrothesp 17:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I'd say caling prostitution 'victimless' is POV --BNJT 20:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] famous?
The "Famous red-light districts" section is turning into an out-of-control unsourced list of every alleged red light district on Earth, famous or not. I may start pruning it drastically... wikipediatrix 04:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Okay, I've removed it entirely. Not a single entry was sourced, and 99.9 percent of the entries were not "famous" at all by encyclopedic standards. This article is not supposed to be List of red light districts, nor is it supposed to be the World Sex Guide. wikipediatrix 17:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- And I have restored it. By all means remove it to a separate article (List of red-light districts would be fine), but do not completely delete other people's work for spurious reasons. It is not a "sex guide", but a list of well-known red-light districts, which is perfectly encyclopaedic. Your comment about not being "famous" is your own personal opinion, but I shall change it to "notable" as being more encyclopaedic. Most of these places are pretty notable and in a list of this nature it is ridiculous to suggest that every entry should be sourced - the sourcing comes at the articles linked to, not on the list itself. -- Necrothesp 23:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- "Spurious reasons"?? Explain. Also try to explain how "most of these places are pretty notable". Then try to explain why you think entries shouldn't be sourced when not all of the articles make reference to them being red-light districts. Finally, try to explain why this list is even necessary when it's not supposed to be a list article to begin with. If you want to start List of red-light districts, go for it. wikipediatrix 02:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- I have already explained why your reasons are spurious. As I said, if you want to remove it to a separate article then do so, but DO NOT delete work. Your claim that this is original research is ridiculous - I suggest you read the original research article before you reference it, since it does not support your claim. People have been working on this article for some time, then you come along and just think you have the right to delete the lot? I think not. Could this be an attempt at censorship, I wonder? -- Necrothesp 11:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- You've explained nothing. All you're doing is being increasingly insulting and uncivil. Every major city and town in the civilized world has a red light district, but that doesn't mean they should all be listed on this article. wikipediatrix 13:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- I have been neither insulting nor uncivil. You seem to think that you can just impose your will on the rest of the Wikipedia community and simply delete a whole section of the article, which has been present for a considerable time, merely because you personally believe it should not be here. I explained my reasons for restoring the list in my first post here. In support of your action, you referenced a Wikipedia policy which does not support your claim (since it is not original research in any sense under the Wikipedia definition). Indeed, "every major city and town in the civilized world has a red light district". Where is the policy saying that they should not be listed? I have suggested that they could be moved to a separate article - you have responded by once again deleting the whole list. Tell me, who is being uncivil here? However, to avoid further argument I shall move the list to a separate article, which is what you should have done in the first place instead of deleting the whole section. -- Necrothesp 14:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- For example, it is indeed original research for an article to declare that Van Buren Street in Pheonix, Arizona is a place of prostitution, without any proof to back up this wild claim. The Van Buren street entry is redlinked, so where did the person who put it there get this information? People who live there or own property on this street probably do not appreciate this unsubstantiated claim. There is absolutely nothing preventing goofballs from adding any kind of false junk information to this article, using your "who cares if it isn't sourced?" standards. wikipediatrix 14:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Kindly don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say they were all necessarily accurate, but that could go for much of Wikipedia. How do you suggest sourcing a list? Tell me which other lists are sourced. I don't think you'll find many. Yet you pick on this one, which makes me think you have an ulterior motive. Oh and incidentally, if you do a Google search you'll see that Van Buren Street is indeed considered a red-light district. Not really a "wild claim" then, is it? More like an accurate piece of information. So perfectly encyclopaedic and not in any sense "original research". -- Necrothesp 15:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Until the source is placed on the article itself, it's still original research. I couldn't care less what a Google search says if that source isn't reflected in the article. And FYI, I edit many articles for removal of unsourced claims, not just this one. wikipediatrix 16:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- You should still know not to delete large chunks of material without discussion. Period. And as I've said, lists are rarely sourced, since all they do is point to other articles. -- Necrothesp 16:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Until the source is placed on the article itself, it's still original research. I couldn't care less what a Google search says if that source isn't reflected in the article. And FYI, I edit many articles for removal of unsourced claims, not just this one. wikipediatrix 16:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Kindly don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say they were all necessarily accurate, but that could go for much of Wikipedia. How do you suggest sourcing a list? Tell me which other lists are sourced. I don't think you'll find many. Yet you pick on this one, which makes me think you have an ulterior motive. Oh and incidentally, if you do a Google search you'll see that Van Buren Street is indeed considered a red-light district. Not really a "wild claim" then, is it? More like an accurate piece of information. So perfectly encyclopaedic and not in any sense "original research". -- Necrothesp 15:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- For example, it is indeed original research for an article to declare that Van Buren Street in Pheonix, Arizona is a place of prostitution, without any proof to back up this wild claim. The Van Buren street entry is redlinked, so where did the person who put it there get this information? People who live there or own property on this street probably do not appreciate this unsubstantiated claim. There is absolutely nothing preventing goofballs from adding any kind of false junk information to this article, using your "who cares if it isn't sourced?" standards. wikipediatrix 14:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- I have been neither insulting nor uncivil. You seem to think that you can just impose your will on the rest of the Wikipedia community and simply delete a whole section of the article, which has been present for a considerable time, merely because you personally believe it should not be here. I explained my reasons for restoring the list in my first post here. In support of your action, you referenced a Wikipedia policy which does not support your claim (since it is not original research in any sense under the Wikipedia definition). Indeed, "every major city and town in the civilized world has a red light district". Where is the policy saying that they should not be listed? I have suggested that they could be moved to a separate article - you have responded by once again deleting the whole list. Tell me, who is being uncivil here? However, to avoid further argument I shall move the list to a separate article, which is what you should have done in the first place instead of deleting the whole section. -- Necrothesp 14:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- You've explained nothing. All you're doing is being increasingly insulting and uncivil. Every major city and town in the civilized world has a red light district, but that doesn't mean they should all be listed on this article. wikipediatrix 13:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- I have already explained why your reasons are spurious. As I said, if you want to remove it to a separate article then do so, but DO NOT delete work. Your claim that this is original research is ridiculous - I suggest you read the original research article before you reference it, since it does not support your claim. People have been working on this article for some time, then you come along and just think you have the right to delete the lot? I think not. Could this be an attempt at censorship, I wonder? -- Necrothesp 11:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- "Spurious reasons"?? Explain. Also try to explain how "most of these places are pretty notable". Then try to explain why you think entries shouldn't be sourced when not all of the articles make reference to them being red-light districts. Finally, try to explain why this list is even necessary when it's not supposed to be a list article to begin with. If you want to start List of red-light districts, go for it. wikipediatrix 02:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- And I have restored it. By all means remove it to a separate article (List of red-light districts would be fine), but do not completely delete other people's work for spurious reasons. It is not a "sex guide", but a list of well-known red-light districts, which is perfectly encyclopaedic. Your comment about not being "famous" is your own personal opinion, but I shall change it to "notable" as being more encyclopaedic. Most of these places are pretty notable and in a list of this nature it is ridiculous to suggest that every entry should be sourced - the sourcing comes at the articles linked to, not on the list itself. -- Necrothesp 23:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, I've removed it entirely. Not a single entry was sourced, and 99.9 percent of the entries were not "famous" at all by encyclopedic standards. This article is not supposed to be List of red light districts, nor is it supposed to be the World Sex Guide. wikipediatrix 17:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Etymology 2
I happened to catch a cable TV documentary on the history of sex late one night, and it mentioned that the origin of the term "red light district" comes from ancient China or Japan (I forget which) where prostitutes would traditionally hang red lanterns outside to indicate their presence. We definitely need a good scholarly opinion on this issue. -- Beland 19:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
