Talk:Pimp

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pimp redirect.
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

Archives: 1, 2: 45 days

Sexology and sexuality Redirect‑class Mid‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This redirect 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 articles
Redirect	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by when more than 7 sections are present.

Reference to UN convention of 2005

The following statement is made in this article:

sam mo fuckin Krause

"In 2005, the United Nations adopted a convention stating that prostitution is a matter of sexual choice and should be legal throughout the UN, repealing the 1949 statute. Most voters voted for the resolution, and 165 countries legalized prostitution. The most notable non-signatory was the United States."

Please add link to source

Incredibly Poorly Written

This article strikes me as extremely stupidly written and biased, even in the first paragraph. A pimp is not specifically someone who finds underage and "for what ever reason" susceptible women. Or take this.

"At the top there is the pimp who runs the business. Below the pimp is the bottom girl. She acts in a way like an office manager, keeping tabs on the neighborhood when the pimp is away, keeping the pimp apprised of the law enforcement activity, and collecting money from the prostitutes."

This is, let's face it, stupid. It's poorly written, and the citation doesn't link to anything.

Someone fix this article.

Skank Agent

Nowadays people who could be loosely defined as "pimps" prefer to be called Skank Agents. A Skank Agent isn't a pimp, it is an agent that has skanky friends. I'm new here, but i think if someone types "Skank Agent" in the searchbox, it should at the very least direct to pimp in the interim. Also, can someone write a new article on Skank Agentry and get it approved for Wikipedia? Much appreciated Ron Pattinson (talk) 08:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Discussion

I suggest merging this article into Procuring (prostitution), because that is the legal term. I also think occupation articles are named after the word for the occupation itself not that for the "occupant". - Timur lenk (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. Also, given that the two articles are basically about the same phenomenon, there is no need for two articles. And the multitude of articles tends to produce POV forks. Alfons Åberg (talk) 11:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree. While the articles essentially cover the same topic, the term "pimp" is more widely and commonly understood. See WP:Contested vocabulary. I would recommend merging Procuring (prostitution) → Pimp. The Pimp article could provide a section on legal terminology, covering both Procuring (prostitution) and Pandering. Cindamuse (talk) 13:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 68.39.243.39, 18 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} May I edit this page?

68.39.243.39 (talk) 05:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What would you like to edit? —Mike Allen 05:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Tattoos

Basically nothing in this paragraph is supported by the given sites and should be removed. I'd remove it but the page is semi-protected for no obvious reason. 128.114.59.182 (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the comments regarding tattoos are supported in both references provided. Cindamuse (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the actual linked reference. It says nothing of the sort. TJ Black (talk) 02:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it and it supports the content offered in the article. Please refrain from POV pushing through deletion of sections and content. Your edits equate to vandalism. Cindamuse (talk) 02:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where, in either linked ref, does it say any of the following things:

Many pimps tattoo prostitutes as a mark of "ownership"
The tattoo will often be the pimp's street or even his likeness
The mark might be as discreet as ankle tattoo, or blatant as a neck tattoo, or large scale font across the prostitute's lower back, thigh, chest, or buttocks
If a prostitute comes under the domain of another pimp, the previous pimp's tattoo might either be removed or simply crossed out and replaced with her new pimp's name.

I'm not seeing it. And as these aren't supported by either ref, please explain how I'm POV pushing by removing them. Also please explain why it's POV pushing to remove "type= Criminal" from the info box when nothing in the definition implies that pimps are necessarily criminal? To state that is potentially even a BLP violation. TJ Black (talk) 02:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The general consensus is that paragraphs/sections of sorts need support of at least one source. The entry on the branding of prostitutes with tattoos is supported through two sources. Additional links are certainly available, but link farms are not appropriate. And honestly, trying to claim that pimping is not criminal is a stretch, or in other words, an attempt at POV pushing. Seriously, just stop. Cindamuse (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop what? Trying to bring the article into conformity with wikipedia guidelines? Or do they just not apply to this article for some reason? If so, then it should be explicitly marked as such. If not, then please address the questions raised above instead of just dismissing them, distorting my words, and repeatedly slandering other editors with false accusations of vandalism and POV pushing. Thank you. TJ Black (talk) 03:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I butt in? I think you are both right and both wrong. First, I think (this is my personal opinion) that the paragraph makes a bit (too) much out of two mentions, one of which is an op-ed piece. But the proper course of action here is not to remove the entire paragraph, since the two references are to reliable sources, and there is no violation of any kind here. The statements summarized above by TJ Black are more or less verified by the articles, but one may disagree about the depth and extent of those discussions in the articles. Conceivably though, sources could be found--removing it, and removing those sources, is at the least disruptive. At the same time, the section as it stands is, in my opinion, insufficiently verified. As for the criminal part, I don't get that at all--as far as I know, pimping is against the law (in most countries). That makes it criminal (in most countries). End of discussion. To want to remove that qualification is indeed disruptive POV pushing, and I urge TJ Black to refrain from making such edits. Drmies (talk) 19:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for actually discussing content. I don't know what Cindamuse is hoping to accomplish by throwing out false accusations and refusing to discuss content, but it's very disheartening. I proposed something similar to what you said above on their talk page - reduce the section to 1 sentence, as that's all that's conceivably supported by the refs, and since 1 sentence isn't sufficient for it's own section, merge it into the previous paragraph. As for the remainder of the paragraph, it's purely original research, not backed by the given refs at all. An eminently reasonable compromise, but for some reason Cindamuse refuses to even discuss it.

As for defining pimping as criminal, you give an argument that it isn't and then conclude that it is. So it has to be removed as a potential BLP violation. Either that or remove the list of "Notable pimps and madams". It's one or the other, to suggest anything else means violating wikipedia's core principles. Thanks again for engaging in actual constructive discussion. That's the only way wikipedia can work; disruptive editors like Cindamuse are not contributing. TJ Black (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<--No, I didn't give an argument that pimping is not criminal. I said it is against the law, and thus I think that "Criminal" is proper in the infobox. You can call for verification, but the argument that this is a BLP violation is quite a stretch. The list has nothing to do with that--I assume that those person's pimpness is well-established in their articles. BTW, I removed the unverified part from the Tattoo section, with an edit summary explaining why. Also, please don't call Cindamuse disruptive; their actions have been, in my opinion, in perfect agreement with Wikipedia's guidelines, and it is best not to let it go that far. Drmies (talk) 20:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The modern slang term for pimp

The one article I really think Wikipedia hasn't mentioned was the slang term for pimp. Mainly due to the fact I have no idea of that term it should be mentioned in the main article of pimp. To me pimp really doesn't seem to mean anything to me about being sexual. Just saying okay. ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.103.233.227 (talk) 01:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term "pimp" (used as a verb) is covered within the Etymology section. You may also want to view Pimp (disambiguation) for more information. Cindamuse (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 209.129.115.2, 10 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Under Notable pimps, I'm sure that Miles Davis was one for a short period around the fifties.

209.129.115.2 (talk) 00:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Since that request is somewhere between patent nonsense and unreferenced, it cannot be added to the page. Should you, somehow, produce a reliable source verifying that fact, then we could consider adding it. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We could consider that, but why would we? In his autobiography Miles says that he acted like one, but what is the point of listing that in this article? It was hardly his main line of income--you may know that he also played the trumpet. Drmies (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]