Talk:Prostitution law in Canada

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Prostitution law in Canada article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Canada: Law Low‑importance

Canada
portal

WikiProject
Canada

Canada
notice board

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian law.

Sexology and sexuality: Sex work Low‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Sex work task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Merging the Articles?

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) 16:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of Bedford decision

The Harper government's swift passage of C-36 has been widely criticized as an attempt to reintroduce limits which the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional. There needs to be some discussion of this. I don't have the time to do it myself, as it would require some research, but it would be helpful if someone could "fill in the blanks" on the fallout from the Bedford decision. Theonemacduff (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To separate the contents, but to maintain two articles with different, complementary scopes; too big for a merge; an important topic. Klbrain (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is substantial overlap in these two articles. I think they should be merged. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC) This relates to this page and Prostitution in Canada. Klbrain (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I agree that there is a large overlap in content in these articles and also with History of prostitution in Canada. However, merging would create a large and unwieldy article. The merged article would probably be WP:TOOBIG and a potential candidate for a WP:SPLIT proposal. I would suggest that the legal aspects in Prostitution in Canada and History of prostitution in Canada be trimmed to give an overview and that Prostitution law in Canada used for a more detailed account of the legislation both past and present. --John B123 (talk) 08:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The subject matter in these two pages is not the same thing and while I agree we can improve things I think the answer is to discuss a reorganization of the information and not simply merging them into one unwieldy article. Jorahm (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is good stuff and the topic is clearly notable - keep. Moonraker (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.