Talk:Prostitution in Iran

I am changing the part where it mentions 81 thousand "Persian" prostitutes in tehran. As there are many ethnicities in Iran and tehran, especially many foriegn prostitutes and that article is not valid nor legit but biased and amature. I just took the Persian part out and left the 80 thousand prostitutes.

Unreferenced statements

For instance, consider this statement:

"The exact number of prostitutes working in Iran is unknown, but in 2017 it was estimated that there were 228,700 prostitutes in Iran and that the number was on the rise."

The reference is https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7724161/, which states at the top: "An official website of the United States government." A country at war with Iran. Is it a biased ref? To put in the introduction?

Another statement claims:

"Leather boots are widely used by Iranian prostitutes for findom and better control over men. Iranian men have accepted boots as a symbol of women's power. A report in 2020 showed a high number of men donated a large portion of their income to Iranian girls wearing boots."

This is the base of the image provided for the article. However, it has 3 PERSIAN references (not 1 English) and NONE have even mentioned this statement.

So, the 3 references did not say anything about boots.

If you do not know Persian, you can translate the 2 websites, one of which is named Online News (خبر آنلاین), and is extremely unreliable. The 1 book is inaccessible to normal people.

NONE mentioned boots.

Therefore, the image is unrelated.

AND ALL OF THESE UNREFERENCED STATEMENTS ARE IN THE INTRODUCTION.

It's all like this. So I removed them and explained the lack of references, and @Augmented Seventh threatened me with being blocked.

The statements are unreferenced, and many of the things that were written in the previous edit before main HAVE BEEN WRITTEN ONLY HERE and are new for EVERYONE and CANNOT BE FOUND ANYWHERE ELSE. 92.113.42.181 (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

That paper on the NIH website was originally published here in Heliyon which is (presumably) not US government related. See MOS:LEAD; statements in the lead may be cited in the body. Get wp:consensus before removing again. See wp:BRD. BTW: Your notification to @Augmented Seventh: probably did not work. See help:notifications. Please wp:don't shout. Thank you Adakiko (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

1. This what has writen at the top of the refrence

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov

A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS

A lock (  ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

this is the ref: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7724161/

it is .gov who is it not related to the US goverment?

2. "Leather boots are widely...

none of The 3 non English refrences mentione anything about this information. Please see it for you self. 92.113.42.181 (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

The correct thing to do is add a citation needed tag to the particular sentence, section or article. Do not keep removing content you disagree with. OceanLoop (talk) 23:07, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I remove misleading references and statements not the ones I disagree with. 92.113.42.181 (talk) 23:08, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Their removal is not up to your discretion; however the addition of aforementioned maintenance tags is, and you are encouraged to use them to resolve or at least mitigate your concerns. OceanLoop (talk) 23:09, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Howdy fellow collaborator, and thanks for including me in the discussion.

Reading over the edits, to this article—and others—it would seem the way to make a more accurate encyclopedia would be to find sourced content that support your contrary claims and introduce your claims with, "scholar ⁿ, writing for ^x, takes exception with these characterizations, and this is why".

Rather than remove content to suit a pre-determined narrative, present a sourced rebuttal of what you see as contentious claims.

Hope that helps, Augmented Seventh 03:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, this Wikipedia page is full of statements and claims without any credible sources to prove them. A large part of the content, such as the opinion about women's boots, is more descriptive than an accurate statistic with numbers, and everyone's perspective on the subject is different. Sam.ai123334 (talk) 08:18, 26 September 2025 (UTC)