| Revision as of 00:22, 19 April 2008 editIamcuriousblue (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,708 edits →Dispute← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 12:30, 16 November 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,873,724 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 9 WikiProject templates. (Fix Category:Pages with redundant living parameter)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion | ||
| (175 intermediate revisions by 41 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{ |
{{Talk header}} | ||
| {{WikiProjectBanners | |||
| |1={{WPBiography | |||
| |living=yes | |||
| |class=Stub | |||
| |priority=low | |||
| |old-peer-review=yes | |||
| }} | |||
| |2={{WikiProject Gender Studies|class=Stub}} | |||
| |3={{SFBA Project|class=Stub|importance=Low}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Controversial}} | {{Controversial}} | ||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=B|listas=Farley, Melissa|1= | |||
| {{archive box| | |||
| {{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|user=Miniapolis|date=March 6, 2017}} | |||
| * ] | |||
| {{WikiProject Biography|old-peer-review=yes|needs-photo=yes|s&a-work-group=yes|s&a-priority=}} | |||
| * ] | |||
| {{WikiProject Gender studies|importance=Mid}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=Mid|sex-workers=yes|sex-workers-importance=low}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Pornography|importance=Low}} | |||
| {{WikiProject California|importance=Low|sfba=yes|sfba-importance=Low}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Women writers |importance=Low}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Psychology|importance=low}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Women scientists|importance=low}} | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Image requested|scientists and academics|people of the United States}} | |||
| {{Archive box| | |||
| == Background clarification == | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| Added information on clinical psychology background. This article still contains incorrect and misleading information and is incomplete in many respects, but not to worry, I'm back from vacation and ready to work on it. Due to the contentious nature of this article in the past, I will make each edit individually so we can discuss them in a clear and organized fashion.--] 21:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| == Moved Guardian article to News Articles section == | |||
| }} | |||
| Moved this article to News since it is a news article. --] 21:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * by Julie Bindel, '']'', September 7, 2007. | |||
| ==Additions and changes== | |||
| 1) Have taken several background items (academic background, etc) out of the lead paragraph and moved into an infobox. | |||
| 2) Have expanded the descriptors in the first sentence. These are all based on cited descriptions of Farley from published sources, including an article written by Farley herself. Specifically: | |||
| * "Melissa Farley is a fiminist (sp.) psychologist and antipornography activist" ("Prostitution: The oldest use and abuse of women" by Melissa Farley, off our backs, May 1994. ) – note that this is from an article written by Farley herself. | |||
| *"a San Francisco clinical and research psychologist" ("Slick S.F. posters advocate decriminalizing prostitution" by Kevin Foley, San Francisco Examiner, August 14, 1995.) | |||
| *"a San Francisco psychologist and anti-prostitution activist." ("Sober forum, street theater on prostitution ballot issue" by Patrick Hoge, San Francisco Chronicle, August 31, 2004.) | |||
| *Melissa Farley's 2005 CV also refers to her as a "clinical psychologist". | |||
| 3) Added citation of newspaper article concerning her opposition to sex-worker rights groups, added specifically COYOTE, since this is a notable group and specifically mentioned in the newspaper article. ("Ex-prostitutes' quilt honors slain women" by Associated Press, Las Vegas Review-Journal, April 13, 1994, p 14.) | |||
| 4) In the last week, I have also added several sentences concerning her report on Nevada brothels. ("Outlaw industry, ex-prostitutes say" by Lynnette Curtis, Las Vegas Review-Journal, September 6, 2007; "Panel: Brothels aid sex trafficking" by Mark Waite, Pahrump Valley Times, September 7, 2007.) | |||
| 5) Also, linked a number of articles by or about Farley to "external links". At least some of this should eventually be incorporated into the article at some point. | |||
| ] 03:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Edit to intro paragraph. == | |||
| The following sentence in the intro paragraph did not make sense, trafficking is not an "industry" people "engage" in. It is also lacking the fact that Farley is also well known for her research on sexual violence. | |||
| Farley is best known for her studies of the effects of prostitution and trafficking on those engaged in those industries. | |||
| I changed it to | |||
| Farley is best known for her studies of the effects of prostitution, trafficking, and sexual violence.--] 20:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :No problems with this – good change. I do, however, have big problems with the blatantly POV edit by ] (a wholesale removal of ALL perspectives critical of Farley, in total violation of ]) that proceeded yours and have reverted that edit. ] 21:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Statement by ] == | |||
| *As one familiar with the work of Melissa Farley, I find the indefatigable efforts of Peter G. Werner to convert an accurate description of the work of Dr. Farley, supported by references to her publications and published reports on her public activities, into an opportunity to attack and misrepresent her work even to the extent of substituting the attacker's vocabulary for her own, to be a total abuse of Misplaced Pages standards for presenting reliable information for public use. Moreover, Mr. Werner's intemperate attacks on those who politely disagree with his radical and intrusive editorial changes to the Farley page and his use of vulgar language in doing so are so abusive of the Misplaced Pages process as to justify barring him from participating in any editing of this page. If Mr. Werner wishes to use Misplaced Pages to advance his own ideas on the subject of prostitution, including using his own vocabulary to do so, he should utilize pages appropriate to his subject, such as the "Sex Work" page. It should be noted that even readers who strongly disagree with the content of that page allow it to make its own case to the Misplaced Pages audience without stooping to engage the kind of guerilla intrusions, exclusions, and abuse of process in which Mr. Werner indulges.<br><br>As an experiment, I recently did a thorough revision of the Farley page to trim it back to a basic factual presentation of the work and public positions of Dr. Farley. I allowed the section presenting criticism of Dr. Farley's work to remain untouched, letting readers judge its merits for themselves. I explained my edit as just what it was - done to preserve the integrity of a straightforward presentation of this researcher's work and stated positions on a subject of importance. Within a very short time, the former vandalized version, with its blatant display of the editor's POV, had been restored intact. Since I do not engage in mud-wrestling, I will not participate in the farce of trying to hold a reasoned discussion with Mr. Werner. It is time for Misplaced Pages's arbiters to step in to halt his exploitation of the process that they provide to safeguard the value of this democratic encyclopedia. ] 23:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::According to ], a version with any statements critical of the subject is a "vandalized" version. This is utterly incorrect – ] demands that articles on controversial topics (and Melissa Farley is nothing if not controversial) present all points of view in an evenhanded manner, and that such statements be cited and referenced. This is precisely what I have attempted to do. ], who I'm assuming is the user in question here, removed all critical statements and added some biased statements of their own, in blatant violation of ]. I'd be happy to bring this article back to mediation cabal, if you wish. Its clear that I am at least attempting to edit toward ], something I cannot say about the edits of ]. ] 02:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::And as for this statement "I allowed the section presenting criticism of Dr. Farley's work to remain untouched, letting readers judge its merits for themselves." You most certainly did not – you removed all references to criticisms of Farley. Here is a "" and "" view of your edits showing this to be the case. ] 17:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::On rereading the statement by ], it strikes me that this user has a basic misunderstanding about Misplaced Pages and the concept of NPOV. Apparently, this user thinks that pages are suppose to be written from some kind of "sympathetic point of view", hence an article about Melissa Farley should be written from a point of view supportive of Melissa Farley and that the "other side" should present its point of on a page like ]. This is, of course, not the way Misplaced Pages works at all. I would advise ] to read up on the basics of Misplaced Pages, here at ]. I would also advise them to read over ] and ] as I think that might help dispel some confusion this user might have as to the nature of Misplaced Pages. ] 03:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::One more note – If you note the edits I made immediately following my reversion of ]'s edits, one will note that I reincorporated the material that this user added to the article, but restated it in more neutral language, and took the statements more or less directly from a cited source by Farley herself. I also reorganized the article somewhat based on the reorganization that ] attempted. What I have categorically reverted was the dumping of cited and referenced material that was only dropped because ] happen to disagree with it. ] 17:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have taken the serious step of reverting back to the ] version. It seems Peter Werner (iamcuriousblue) is determined to relentlessly carry out his crusade against Dr. Farley in her Misplaced Pages entry. His personal animosity toward Farley already has a home on Werner's web page at http://bppa.blogspot.com and his participation in the smear campaign website at http://deepthroated.wordpress.com. It is not appropriate to bring your personal campaign against Dr. Farley to Misplaced Pages. The edits made by Ninorc substantially removed the bias you had inserted and have rabidly defended. I will ask you once again if perhaps you might want to abstain from editing this particular entry since you are so determined that it reflect your point of view rather than the history and work of the subject of this Misplaced Pages entry.--] 08:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have reverted your last edit and will continue to work on this article. Yes, I have a particular point of view about Melissa Farley and fully acknowledge my particiption in both of these blogs, HOWEVER, I have endeavored in good faith to work toward an NPOV version of this article. It is also clear to me that both yourself and ] are also coming from you own POV toward Melissa Farley and that neither of you are making any effort to comply with ] in this matter, which the full removal of all critical statements, even when cited and referenced, clearly constitutes. I would be happy to reopen the Mediation Cabal case in this regard, which was never really settled, but you seem to have sat out until it expired. I flat-out refuse to concede to the blatant POV-pushing that you and ] are engaged in. ] 20:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::As usual, you revert each and every attempt by anyone else besides you to edit this entry. For some reason you seem to believe that only you, Mr. Werner, know the rightness and wrongness of Dr. Farley's work, and that you simply must point out everywhere that she has "got it wrong." But as you well know, that is not what ] means. Your point of view and my point of view do not belong in this entry. This is an entry about Melissa Farley and her point of view. Every single person that has tried to remove your blatent smears on Farley has conceded to you that Weitzer's litle articles could go in a criticism section. But that is not enough for you. You seem to think that Farley's work should be defined by her critics, rather than by what she has studied, reported on, published, and said for herself. Patient people have tried to work with you, but you are clearly determined to turn a simple bio entry into your own political platform for attacking Farley. This is tiresome and inappropriate and I will request for the 10th time that you consider abstaining from editing this entry because of your extremely passionate views about the subject of this biography entry. --] 07:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Do you think that continually repeating yourself changes anything? I have said that I am not going to refrain from editing this article. I simply do not see your demands (and these are very much demands) as being in any way legitimate – the way I see it, it is ''you'' who are on a crusade to bias the article toward one biased in favor of Melissa Farley's views. Go repeat yourself 100 times for all I care – you have my answer: No, I will not stop editing this article. What I am asking is that you re-enter the mediation process and re-open ]. I have nothing more to say to you in the meantime, and I'll note that you have no power whatsoever to demand or request anything of me without going through the dispute resolution process, of which Mediation is the first step. Continue with your temper tantrum if you wish, Axiomatica, I will simply keep editing and without responding to you. ] 07:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Charming. This article should not reflect ANY bias, your or mine. It is an encyclopedic biography entry! It should tell us something about the work of the subject of the entry. As it stands now it has multiple factual errors and each time someone tries to correct them, you reverse their work. You have no ownership of this entry and this entry is not your personal platform for attacking Farley. Can we not just let it be a simple recitation of the facts? --] 08:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::It is a simple recitation of facts, in spite of your assertions to the contrary. I agree that "this article should not reflect ANY bias, your or mine." I don't think the article as it stands IS a reflection of my POV (my views of Farley are much harsher), however, I think the version you are pushing is very much a reflection of your personal POV around the issue. In fact, the whole idea that I am uniquely "biased" while you are somehow unbiased is been the Big Lie you've been pushing now for the last 4 months. ] 08:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Oh, and by the way, why do you continually skirt the issue of mediation? You damn well know that if you are really interested in getting rid of bias, the quickest way would be to have an outside party intervene. What's your problem with mediation – afraid things aren't going to go 100% your way and you can't settle for less? This is what this whole argument is really about, isn't it? ] 09:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ]'s recent edits and why I changed them. == | |||
| 1) Removed the adjective "wholesale" in the phrase "wholesale decriminalization", viewing the word as "editorializing". How this word is "editorializing" is simply beyond me – the adjective is there to ''clarify'' and ''accurately represent'' Melissa Farley's views on the subject. She has stated that she wants prostitution decriminalized ''for prostitutes'', but not decriminalized for pimps and buyers. This distinguishes her views both from advocates of full decriminalization and from proponents of full criminalization. In any event, I have changed the adjective from "wholesale" to "across-the-board" in the interest of clarity. | |||
| 2) Clearer description of Weitzer's views are a good idea (and actually were in an earlier version of the article before another editor removed it, probably viewing the statement as prejudicial). However a parenthetical statement that reads "most notably by sociologist Ronald Weitzer whose "two track" approach favors decriminalizing or tolerating indoor prostitution which he sees as imposing no harm on the community and who terms efforts to end prostitution a 'moral crusade'" is no only overly verbose, but is more than a little POV and rather petulant in tone, not to mention very poor writing when used as a parenthetical remark. Have changed it to "a proponent of the full decriminalization of indoor prostitution", a succinct representation of his views. There is a direct link to the article on Weitzer that gives a more detailed exposition of his views, in any event. | |||
| ::Weitzer's views about prostitution go on Weitzer's page. This page is not a debate about prostitution, it is a bio entry for Farley, a simple fact that Peter Werner keeps forgetting. --] 06:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| 3) For purposes of citing sources: "]" | |||
| 4) Reference to Farley as a "radical feminist" by critics. Weitzer specifically refers to Farley's "radical feminist" in his critique "Flawed Theory and Method in Studies of Prostitution" and Tracy Quan has also been critical of Farley's "extreme form of feminism". These are the published words of her critics and this article simply reports them. (Which is not to say they are inaccurate – that Farley falls into the ] camp of Andrea Dworkin, Nikki Craft, etc, is abundantly clear from her writings, even if she does not use the term as a self-descriptor.) The addition "but do not define this term" simply represents an unreferenced and probably novel counter-critique by ], and therefore violates Misplaced Pages rules against ] and ]. | |||
| I'm open to discussion of these edits and other changes to this article. However, I would suggest to ] that he or she perhaps familiarize themselves a bit more with Misplaced Pages's rules and guidelines, especially concerning referencing, verifiable sources, and what constitutes original research. ] 06:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please keep your condescending tone out of this discussion. Misplaced Pages guidelines are quite clear that a bio should be about the subject of the bio, not about every Tom, Dick, and Harry who has an opinion about the subject. Farley has published 25 peer-reviewed articles on the subject. She has done extensive original research for over a decade around the world and is considered an expert in many countries including the U.S. Weitzer is a sociologist who has only recently gotten into this field by critiquing people's work, but he has done no original research in the field. Obviously there are many people who agree with Dr. Farley's conclusions. There are also people who do not agree with her conclusions. It is telling that you cannot find actual research psychologists who disagree with her work, however, and have to try to pump up a few off handed articles by a person not even in the field.--] 06:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Again, I will point out, the purpose of this entry is not to debate legal and illegal prostitution. The purpose of this entry is a bio of Farley, not a career booster for Weitzer. You can describe his own views in his own Misplaced Pages entry. Similarly, this is not an entry for Nikki Craft or Andrea Dworkin. Please, let us just make this a simple factual encyclopedia bio entry and leave the debate and your advocacy out of it.--] 06:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is not advocacy, this is simply a description of controversies around Melissa Farley, something that is to be included in any biography of a figure how happens to have been involved in controversies. That you have seemingly no understanding of WP:NPOV is not my problem, nor is the fact that you find my tone "condescending". Also, your idea that Wietzer cannot be considered a valid critic of Farley is utterly nonsensical – Weitzer engaged in a debate with Farley in a peer-reviewed journal. That very much constitutes a notable criticism of Farley that very much needs to be in the article. ] 07:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Everyone agrees Weitzer's criticism can remain. However the reader might also want an accurate reflection what Farley has actually researched and written. --] 08:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I am ''all for'' expanding the section on Farley's research. In fact, my plan with where to go next with this article was to do ''exactly'' that, even if nobody else does it first. I think her prostitution research should be described (including her "nine countries" prostitution study, her Nevada study, and her literature reviews on the topic) as well as another section describing her research on the after-effects of physical abuse. The way to go about this is to read the articles (or at least the abstracts), then put together a summary in ones own words. (The way ''not'' do it is to do what you did several months ago, which was to cut-and-paste abstracts from Farley's articles, which is outright ] and ], and very much in violation of Misplaced Pages's rules on those subjects.) And "everyone agrees Weitzer's criticism can remain"? ''You'' certainly had one hell of an issue with that only a few minutes ago, and in your last edit removed all references to it. Nice to see you're open to changing your mind on this, though. ] 09:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The version Ninorc wrote that I reverted to a few minutes ago kept all of Weitzer's debate with Farley - right there in the section called Debates. To repeat, no one has said there shouldn't be links to the Weitzer/Farley debate. No one. We're all fine with it. This is a straw man argument at best. And by the way, citing a sentence from an abstract is not plagiarism, it is accuracy. In such a contentious article as this, accuracyis far better than waiting for you to interpret the results of psychological field research. The bottom line is that we need to knock this article back to something we can achieve consensus on and stop this crazy revision war. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :::::::The "debates" section you are referring to is a series of ''external links''. External links are not a substitute for inclusion of relevant material summarized in the article itself. As for your defense of cutting and pasting abstracts into the article, this is, once again, an example of you making policy up off the top of your head whenever it suits you. ] 18:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == It is time for Peter Werner to stop vandalizing this bio == | |||
| As the extraordinarily long discussion on this page shows, multiple people have come into this bio to try to remove Mr. Werner's bias from this page. Each time this happens, Mr. Werner thoroughly obliterates the person's work, adopts a weirdly superior tone, sends threatening messages, and eventually gets openly hostile in the discussion. | |||
| The time has come for your to realize Mr. Werner (iamcuriousblue) that the purpose of a bio entry in an encyclopedia is to describe the life and work of the subject. You seem to think the purpose of this bio is to elevate some obscure sociologist who doesn't like Farley's work, in an attempt to help him in building a career promoting porn and prostitution. | |||
| Weitzer and Werner's opinions about Farley's work are not the subject of this bio. They certainly do belong in a criticism section. But Mr. Werner has spent hours trying to frame each and every sentence of this bio in his and Mr. Weitzer's terminology. | |||
| It took literally months of debate to get the word "radical" dropped from the subject's description. Mr. Werner has fought tooth and nail to keep things in here that simply don't belong. He purports to know Farley's opinion about "sex work", but she doesn't even use the term and clearly states why she doesn't use the term, so how does Mr. Werner psychically know her professional opinion about the term? He has written she is against sex worker rights when she has a long history of working WITH the people Werner would call sex workers. | |||
| The source of Mr. Werner's animosity toward Farley remains a mystery to me, but it is clear that he sees this bio entry as his own little kingdom for spinning decades of work by a researcher to fit his own political agenda. | |||
| Please stop vandalizing this entry, Mr. Werner. We should be able to make this a simple, factual, bio entry. You are free to create other bio entries for Weitzer and yourself to go on at length about your views on the subject of prostitution. But this entry is not the appropriate place to carry out your crusade.--] 06:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not on a "crusade" with this article, but am simply trying to make sure that all points of view concerning this controversial figure are represented. This is ''clearly'' what is called for under the terms of ] and ]. What part of this central Misplaced Pages guideline ] and ] either don't understand or simply fail to recognize is simply beyond me. The seeming lack of respect for WP:NPOV by these editors indicates to me that they are on a "crusade" of their own, as their quite visible animus toward any views critical of Melissa Farley clearly indicate. Furthermore, I'll point out that referring to every single one of my edits as "vandalism" flies in the face of the Misplaced Pages tenet to ], and that it is not Axiomatica's place to demand that I, or any other editor, cease editing an article. I expressly refuse to accede to this wholly illegitimate demand, so stop making this demand. Furthermore, I have repeatedly asked ] to participate in mediation with me over this article, a process that this user backed out of when things weren't going their way and is seemingly refusing to re-enter into now. ] 06:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please be honest about the history here. I did participate fully in the mediation, my edits on things like removal of the word 'radical" were upheld. If you remember, you were also warned about your incivility at the time. We were asked to abstain from editing for a few weeks and then I went on vacation. Now I am back and I see that you are hassling yet another person who has sincerely tried to edit the obvious bias out of this article only to have everything constantly reversed by you. THAT is the actual history of this discussion which is readable by anyone who so chooses to review it. Furthermore, I have never said that every single one of your edits is vandalism, nor have I demanded that you stop editing this entry. I have only asked that you consider doing so since you seem to have lost any objectivity on the subject of this entry. --] 08:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::You never said a thing about your "going away on vacation" or asking for any kind of moratorium until you got back. You simply stopped participating in the process. Since I had no idea whether you were even active on Misplaced Pages and since the mediation case closed as a result, I simply went back to editing. | |||
| ::::I didn't realize I needed to check in with you about my vacation plans. --] 11:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That's a rather snotty remark, and unfortunately typical of the reason why trying to deal with you in any kind of collaborative manner is basically doomed for failure. You typically take a very snotty combative tone and actions, continuously try to "escalate", and then if somebody looses their cool, you make a big to-do about "incivility" toward you. In response to your remark, no you don't need to check your vacation plans with me, but if you were going to suddenly leave the mediation process, you should have said so. Not just disappear, wait for the process to expire, than magically pop up later and declare that earlier mediation had been a failure. ] 11:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::And let's be quite clear on things like the term "radical feminist", etc. This was dropped as a descriptor for Melissa Farley because there was no reference to her self-identifying as such. It was never agreed that it could not be mentioned that her critics said this about her, since this is quite specifically mentioned in Weitzer's critique. Also, I have specifically added back mention of her as a "feminist" in the lead of the article, because I found a specific self-description of herself as a "feminist psychologist" in an article she wrote for ''on our backs'' in 1994. If you go back and read the debates we were having in mediation, the points that were at issue were ones that were not properly referenced. You are now demanding that points that are very clearly referenced nevertheless be dropped. Simply because they don't happen to agree with ''your'' views on Melissa Farley. (And I'll also point out that in some of your edits earlier this evening, you were quite quick to want to keep some unreferenced statements against Farley's critics.) ] 10:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm not demanding anything at the moment except an end to this reversion nonsense. Let's EDIT intead of REVERT. I'm willing to knock this thing back to something neutral and discuss these points one by one until we can achieve some kind of agreement on what is accurate and appropriate. I don't think that is too much to ask. Let's take this colling off period to do that, what do you say? --] 11:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The problem is, we don't even agree on what is "something neutral". I simply don't agree that the version that you want to revert to is a neutral one. I think that this is the fundamental problem with your whole approach, and one that I think is fundamentally dishonest – your ongoing claim that my views are biased and yours are neutral. I'm sorry, Axiomatica, you have a point of view too, and some rather extreme biases. That you continue to delude yourself and anybody who will listen that your point of view happens to be a neutral one is more than a little self-serving. As for knocking back the article, I'm open to my stub suggestion. ] 11:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I certainly DID assume good faith way back in June when I first stumbled upon this entry as the above discussion shows. Since then I have witnessed ] reverse almost every edit made by anyone else and push your extremely biased view of the subject while accusing others of POV pushing. I and others have tried to point out to you that not just the overall tone of this piece is biased, but there are factual errors here. Yet you blithely go on reversing everything and putting the incorrect material back in place. You are pushing your anti-Farley bias into almost ever sentence of this entry while others are trying to create a simple fact-based entry here. Yes Dr. Farley's work is controversial. But the purpose of this article is to lay out what her work IS and then link to critics. If you want a debate on whether prostitution is bad for women or not, that goes on a different entry. I again implore you to let this bio be a bio and not a platform for ] personal campaign for prostitution and against Dr. Farley. --] 07:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Reversion to most neutral recent version == | |||
| The version of this article posted by ] at 19 September 2007 is the most simple and neutral version of this article and so I have reverted to it. It deletes the factually incorrect statements and more accurately reflects the subject of this entry, Melissa Farley. | |||
| I would suggest that ] consider using another entry, possibly something like "Prostitution research" or "Prostitution research controversies" to lay out the arguments about prostitution research in general. However, this is a bio entry and not a debate on prostitution, so let's just stick to the facts about the subject here with links to other entries about the topics and issues.--] 08:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)--] 08:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :What you are suggesting is a ], something expressly disallowed by Misplaced Pages rules. Again, there is no good reason to do this, since ] and ] clearly state that articles about controversial topics (including biographies of controversial individuals) discuss the controversy in an even-handed manner, which is exactly what the version I have edited does. You assertions that coverage of such controversies does not belong in an individuals biography is simply a "rule" that you have made up out of whole cloth (which is not the first time you've done something like that) and in fact is utterly the opposite of what Misplaced Pages rules and guidelines call for. ] 08:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sigh. I wonder if your confusion about this is as a result of not distinguishing between a bio and an issue entry. There is a very clear official policy on Biographies of living persons at ]. To quote: ''"Misplaced Pages articles can affect real people's lives. This gives us an ethical and legal responsibility. Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly if it is contentious."'' There is also specific guidance on criticism ''"The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article."'' This is all we are trying to do with this entry. Please ] stop reversing the honest attempts of others to clean up the factual errors here and try to describe the work of the subject of this bio entry. Thank you. --] 09:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: - sigh- ] does not in any way represent an exception to ], and you really need to stop interpreting it as such. ] does demand that critical statements be clearly referenced to reliable secondary sources and this article, every such critical statement is referenced to such sources – mainly academic journal articles and newspaper articles. Nor do they take up a disproportionate amount of the article. The conditions of ] have been fulfilled, your baseless assertions to the contrary notwithstanding. ] 09:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Page Protection == | |||
| Per a request filed at ], this page has been protected from editing until unsolved issues are resolved. Please try and keep the conversation ], and let's find a clear solution everyone can agree one. ]]] 09:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, its unfortunate that it had to come to this, but there it is. Basically, I don't see myself and ] coming to any kind of agreement at all, much less consensus, so long as the conversation is only between me and ], since we can't even agree on the basic idea of what an NPOV article on a controversial individual even looks like. I'll once again extend the invitation to ] to reopen ]. Frankly, I think Axiomatica's views on how to deal with bios of controversial individuals are absolutely in error, but if I'm wrong on this, I want to hear it from a neutral third party. (And if Axiomatica is wrong on this, I really hope that user prepared to listen as well.) I think reopening the mediation case is the only way forward, because, basically, my response to Axiomatica's "my way or the highway" line is not going to change. ] 09:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::It is indeed unfortunate it came to this. This really isn't a matter of who is right and wrong, Peter. This entry isn't about you or me. It is supposed to be about the subject of the bio. Try this...take a look at the Misplaced Pages bio of someone who is wildly controversial like Bill O'Reilly. You will notice the bio is about him, not about what his critics think of him. Yes, there are links to critics, and no one has ever argued that there should not be links to Farley's critics. But the point of the bio is that it is about the subject and it is accurate. That is what we should strive to achieve in this entry. --] 10:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Its clear to me from my interactions with you over the last several months that you basically demand everything your way 100% and that anybody who disagrees with you can simply bugger off. Well, I'm not buggering off. I'm sorry you can't work with other people in an adult manner, but that's simply not my problem. That you have a fundamental misunderstanding of ] and that it entails a fair telling of all sides of a controversial topic, and that biographical entries are not somehow a magic exception to this is a point that's simply lost on you. You are quite simply one of the most obstinate, biased (and fundamentally dishonest about their biases at that!) editors I've ever had the displeasure of working with on Misplaced Pages and I simply will not deal with your fundamental unwillingness to compromise any longer. If you want to deal with me, you deal with me through third party mediation, who maybe can put some check on your out-of-control self-righteousness. Otherwise, I suspect page protection will be up for quite a while. ] 10:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Wow. I think I have been seriously patient with your extreme sense of ownership about this article. In fact everyone who has come in to work on this article has tried very hard to reason with you point by point, and eventually you just start reverting all of our edits and calling us names. Perhaps that tactic works to drive people away, but it's not what a collaborative enterprise like Misplaced Pages is about. I believe it is possible to word this entry in a way that we can all accept. It doesn't have to be your way or my way. We can find a solution. --] 11:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::First, who is "everyone"? You and Ninorc? As far as I know, you may be the same people, but at the very least, you're just two people arguing from the same set of biases. As for the rest of it, this is very much about YOUR demands for article ownership, too, Axiomatica. I haven't seen a single thing you've accused me of so far that you yourself haven't been guilty of in spades. I really suggest that we take it back to mediation, a process that you did not even try to go through in good faith. Otherwise, I don't even see the purpose of having this conversation. If you don't like that, well, tough. ] 11:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Again you accuse me of being someone else? No, I am not Ninorc. Nor am I Nicki Craft. We happen to be 3 people who see some problems with the article and have the nerve to think that we have as much of a right to edit it as you do. Which is the whole point of Misplaced Pages, of course. About mediation. I think we are beyond peer mediation here. I have put in a request at the Biography noticeboard to see if we can get someone in here with some expertise on bio entries. I'm open to other suggestions. --] 12:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Edit Protected Article Request == | |||
| Thank you administrators for your rapid response to my request to protect this page until we can workout some kind of solution. Would it be possible to roll it back past Werners last revision of a few minutes ago to this version which is the most simple and neutral version without all the contentious material in it. | |||
| Please roll back to version of 07:58, 27 September 2007, http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Melissa_Farley&oldid=160650614 | |||
| Thank you. --] 10:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Please note that the version of 07:58, 27 September 2007 is only neutral in the opinion of Axiomatica – I dispute the neutrality of that version. If WP administrators want to go back to a truly neutral (if very limited) version, I suggest knocking the whole thing back to the lead (that is, the first two sentences) and the infobox. ] 10:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Actually, that version (07:58, 27 September 2007) is also neutral in the opinion of Ninorc who carefully very carefully and thoughtfully edited it. --] 11:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, you leave out that both you and Ninorc are on the same "side" in this dispute, so that really doesn't mean anything. Now exactly why every single thing I've added since September 19th (down to the the ISBN number for "Prostitution and trafficking in Nevada"!) represents some horrible biased thing that must be purged from the article shows just how much this has become a personal thing for you. (On the other hand, most of the September 19th version is, ironically enough, also material I've written, which kind of doesn't exactly fit the case that "every sentence" I've contributed represents bias against Farley.) ] 11:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::This really isn't the world against you, Peter. We're not on "sides." All we need to do is edit out some of the contentious material, or possibly reword it. And we need to deal with the "sex work" question. But really, all of this is doable if we can just discuss it and if you will let some other people edit this entry without reverting everything. If I said every sentence was biased, that is definitely not the case. I recommended rolling back to the September 19 version because that is something we can all agree with and then we can add things back in from there. Since you DID write much of it, I would hope it would be acceptable to you also to roll back to that version as a starting point to get us unstuck. --] 11:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::In a word, no, I don't agree with it. And this is all very typical of the way you continuously frae things in terms of the version ''you'' favor as the obvious, "neutral" version. If you would simply concede that ''you'' have a point of view, just like I have a point of view, and maybe neutrality represents some compromise between our points of view, I'd be able to work with you. But when "neutrality" and "compromise" always seems to translate to "do things my way", then there really is no working with you. Basically, until you show some willingness to compromise, I'm done with discussion. This article will stay as it is until protection is lifted. Once it is lifted, we will probably go back to reverting each other. Since you haven't shown any sign that you're going to move an inch from the completely uncompromising stance you've been taking for the last 4 months, what alternative do I have?<br><br>Now if you'd like to negotiate in the presence of a third party, as I said, I'm totally open to that. Somebody with enough knowledge to make some judgments as to whether your rather ''unique'' (to put it kindly) views about neutrality in biographical articles have any basis at all in Misplaced Pages policy. If I'm wrong, I'm willing to accept that, but that judgment is going to have to come from a third party, not from you. ] 12:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::As I mentioned above, I have put in a request at the Biography noticeboard for assistance here. How about if we look at a neutral version as being one that we all agree is accurate but incomplete. Then we can discuss what to add and find a way to word it so we can all live with it. --] 12:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::''If'' there are third parties involved, sure. I'm kind of tired of dealing with just you and your rather unique views on neutrality. I want to see what others have to say about the inclusion of critical material in biographies. However, I still don't agree that the Ninorc version was particularly "neutral". ] 12:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{tl|editprotected}} | |||
| Whenever a page is protected, someone thinks it is the wrong version. For that reason, we generally do not roll back protected pages to previous versions as is requested here. A better use of the time that the page is protected is to discuss the disagreements without having to worry about your edits being reverted. — Carl <small>(] · ])</small> 14:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| In these cases in which two editors are unable to find common ground, the best course of action is to pursue our ]. Otherwise, protecting the article will be followed by editor's ] for edit-warring. {{unsigned|Jossi|15:40, 27 September 2007}} | |||
| ::We already tried peer mediation. ] was told he was wrong about something that should have been obvious and was told to cool it on the incivility. Unfortunately, he is back to his practice of reverting everyone's entry and getting hostile about the fact that other people have the nerve to edit this entry. His bias would not be a problem, if he could collaborate and find ways to agree on the wording of contentious points. But he simply blocks any edits with rash reversions. It's not just tiresome, reporters from major newspapers are finding incorrect information on this entry which makes Misplaced Pages look stupid, something none of us want. The user ] needs to learn to work with others. --] 06:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Please note that restarting the dispute resolution process is exactly what I am trying to do here. Mediation, of course, is a step in the dispute resolution process. This is why I am trying to re-open ], a process Axiomatica simply dropped out of and is refusing to re-enter. Unfortunately, a mediation case cannot even be started unless both parties agree to engage in that process. I am hereby not just agreeing to it, I'm offering it. I'm not positive what my next step is when we still cannot agree and the other party refuses mediation. I am presuming ], especially since our disagreement goes to fundamental points of Misplaced Pages policy. ] 17:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::] continues to distort a history which is clearly on display for anyone to read on this talk page. The mediators told you to let go of your obsession with calling Farley a "radical" and to back off on the incivility and they requested a 2 week moratorium on editing. The moratorium was easy for me, I was going on vacation. I got back and saw user ] harassing and censoring yet another user, ] who was, as others have, trying to get the inflamatory and inaccurate language out of here and just make this a simple bio page. So, I jumped into the fray yet again. It is outrageous that a person has to spend over 10,000 words to get something simple like the term "sex work" removed from this phrase "Farley is a leading proponent of the abolitionist view of sex work." See the discussion below. About mediation, I am very open to a mediation by administrators, but am not interested in a peer mediation. ] has been actively recruiting his political cohorts to come and join this fray and I'm not intersted in a scrum here, just a clean, simple, accurate bio entry per the guidelines of ]--] 06:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Once again, Axiomatica GROSSLY distorts the events. I had asked for a moritorium on editing, while we were in mediation, something Axiomatica refused. Hence both of us continued editing, culminating in Axiomatica's posting "Research" section consisting of a series of cut and paste postings of abstracts from Farley's journal articles. I reverted this as copyright violation and plagiarism. Axiomatica simply disappeared at this point, without announcing that they were leaving for a time. I actually did leave the article alone for a while. However, over a month had passed, Axiomatica was nowhere to be found, and no one else was working on the article, so I continued to work on it. Eventually, an admin closed the mediation case because both Axiomatica and the editor who was acting as peer mediator were no longer active on Misplaced Pages.<br><br>Axiomatica falsely states that mediation was settled, that I was "chastised", and that somehow the mediators gave their stamp of approval to Axiomatica's action. I apologized for my earlier incivility, but there was no suggestion that there were to be any sanctions for this. The use of the term "radical feminist" could not be used ''where it wasn't cited and referenced''. Its usage (as a criticism from others) in the present version of the article is cited and referenced, from one of Weitzer's articles among other sources. That clearly is in keeping with ], but Axiomatica continues to flog the issue nevertheless. While this is a harsh characterization, I can only characterize Axiomatica's continued effort to remove the words of critics from the article as POV pushing. ] 15:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::And as for incivility, I think the rather extreme incivility and utter contempt is rather evident in Axiomatica's tone, both now and throughout this debate. While this user hasn't actually risen to the level of profanity, as I unfortunately have when dealing with Axiomatica's ongoing provocative behavior and rudeness, the tone is evident nevertheless. It is designed to provoke a reaction which this user will then exploit to their advantage. Since Axiomatica is making this an issue, I'm calling Axiomatica on their ongoing incivility and combative tone. I apologize for my earlier incivility and use of profanity, however, I'm not sorry that I called this user on the behavior that led to the incivility. If this user wants the tone of this debate to be more civil, I suggest they change their own. ] 15:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I am pleased to see that the Misplaced Pages page providing a professional biography of Melissa Farley has been placed under protection from further editing and will, I presume, be examined for evidence of prejudicial editing. It seems to me regrettable but more than fair to the author of such editing that his version is allowed to prevail until this process is completed. | |||
| I would like to suggest that Misplaced Pages arbiters of this dispute can find an acceptable model of unbiased and orderly presentation of the views and publications of a person whose views are highly controversial by looking at the Misplaced Pages profile of Ronald Weitzer. Despite the fact that many people disagree strongly with Weitzer's POV toward prostitution, no one has edited Weitzer's page to dispute his views or revise his language to suit their own opinions. Instead, the reader can consult this biography for a straightforward presentation of Weitzer's work. As shown in the following summary example, the page includes a "Debates" section which at present is devoted to a published exchange between Weitzer and Melissa Farley. The only "External link" is to Farley's Misplaced Pages page, presumably to direct the reader to quotations from Weitzer that criticize Farley's work. | |||
| Misplaced Pages entry for Ronald Weitzer: | |||
| "Ronald Weitzer is a sociologist specializing in criminology and a professor at George Washington University, known for his publications on police-minority relations and on the sex industry. | |||
| Contents | |||
| 1 Research and views | |||
| 2 Major publications | |||
| 2.1 Books | |||
| 2.2 Journal and anthology articles | |||
| 3 References | |||
| 4 See also | |||
| 5 External links | |||
| 5.1 By Weitzer | |||
| 5.2 Debates between Ronald Weitzer and others" | |||
| Notice, for example, that no one has altered the term "sex industry" to "commercial sexual exploitation," a term that Weitzer does not use. If Weitzer's work is allowed to speak to the public on its own terms, why should anything less than the same rigorous standard be applied to Farley's work? ] 20:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :On the contrary, I think the lack of information on criticisms of ] is an oversight that I have had every intention of correcting, and have been meaning to get to, though much of my energy has been taken up by the rancorous debates that come up on this page. Insofar as Farley has presented a clear criticism of Weitzer's views or his research methods in the series of articles, I intend to add that material. (And anything else I can find from verifiable published sources.) Please also pay attention to ] and ], especially as this relates to ]. If by "many people's" criticisms of Weitzer, you mean your own pet criticisms, or even the criticisms that might come up in online discussions among prostitution abolitionists – these criticisms need to be those published in citable, verifiable sources. If you have such information, then by all means add it! I'll point out that the criticisms of Farley that are presented in the present draft of this article are from multiple cited and verifiable sources, an important point that some people here are overlooking.<br><br>I think your view reflects an unfortunate view of Misplaced Pages articles, namely, that they're private little fifedoms that are suppose to present an uncritical view of the subject. That is not the case, and I suggest that you read over ] and ] and keep in mind that biographical articles are not some kind of magical exception to these rules. In the articles on ] and ], are only the views of Reagan or Lomborg supporters allowed? Of course not! The Farley and Weitzer articles simply need to be held to the same standard as the biography of any other controversial figure. ] 21:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Linkfarm tag== | |||
| I think that most of these links are useful and directly relevant to the subject of the article. However, I agree that the list of links has grown to be quite long and the linkfarm tag is there with some justification. | |||
| My perspective is that a lot of this material simply needs to be incorporated into the article itself, which is often what is treated as the solution to what to do with a relevant but excessive number of external links. Unfortunately, with such an absolute dispute over whether critical perspectives are allowed and what aspects of Farley's biography are admissible, it is very difficult to proceed with this. ] 17:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::THERE IS NOT DISPUTE ABOUT WHETHER CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ARE ALLOWED. By continuing to say something that is not true, ] simply discredits himself. No one is disputing that criticisms belong here. They just need to meet the policy of ]. What we are asking is that you stop your wholesale reversions so that consensus can be reached on how to word the criticisms. Is that really such a bizarre request? Misplaced Pages is a COLLABORATIVE effort, let's collaborate. --] 06:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::If this is the case, then when the article opens again to editing STOP REVERTING OUT ALL CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES. That's exactly what you and Ninorc have been doing. ] 15:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Actually Ninroc's version was a very careful edit, not a revision. Which is how I suggest we proceed. You chose to revert Ninroc's edits wholesale and I kept trying to get back to them so we would have some starting ground here that we all can agree with. I repeat my request to go back to Ninroc's edit and add things from there in a collaborative fashion. --] 18:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC) (wasn't signed in, edited to add signature.) | |||
| :::::Is this Axiomatica? Ninorc's version is not a "careful edit", but a wholesale dropping of any and all critical perspectives on Farley's work. In any event, no I don't agree to the dropping of these sections as a way to proceed. That you seem hell-bent on censoring this perspective speaks volumes about the perspective that you and Ninorc are coming from. In any event, the offer of mediation is open and I really suggest you take up the offer. Its the only way we are going to move forward. ] 18:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I have responded to the mediation cabal already. I also requested help from the Biography noticeboard. If there are other options available, I am open to hearing about them. --] 18:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Which sections are in dispute == | |||
| I want to outline the dispute here. is the version I last edited and is the version I think should be built on further. is the version ] and ] wish to use as the basis. While there are quite a few differences, the edit war basically boils down to the three sections that are in question, sections that Axiomatica and Ninorc continue to erase entirely: | |||
| :1) "Her prostitution studies, however, have been criticized (most notably by sociologist ], a proponent of the full decriminalization of indoor prostitution) for alleged problems with their methodology and sampling bias toward highly marginalized groups of prostitutes (such as street prostitutes), and for the way the findings of these studies have been more generally applied to demonstrate the harm of sex work of all kinds. Farley's critics also claim that her findings largely reflect her radical feminist ideology." | |||
| :2) "She is also largely opposed to ] activists and groups, such as ], which advocate legalizing or decriminalizing both prostitution and the purchase of sexual services. Many of these activists are likewise strongly opposed to Farley's perspective, holding that Farley's research discredits and misrepresents women working in the sex industry and lacks accountability toward them." | |||
| :3) "Farley is also anti-pornography activist. In 1985, she led a National Rampage Against Penthouse alongside Nikki Craft. The "Rampage" was a ] campaign of public destruction of bookstore-owned copies of '']'' and '']'' (which they denounced as violent ]) and resulting arrest for their actions. Farley was arrested 13 different times in 9 different states for these actions." | |||
| (Note that all three of these sections are thoroughly cited and referenced – please check the article itself for citations.) | |||
| Also at issue is whether the term "]" is allowed to be used at all in the article. | |||
| ] 18:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The phrase "her prostitution studies" is far too vague. She has conducted many studies in many countries around the world. She has published 25 peer-reviewed articles. What I have read of Weitzer's criticism seems to be him complaining that she cites feminist researchers in her work and the fact that an early study focused on "street prostitution." Weitzer has never done psychological field research and has in fact done no original research in the field. His "criticisms" of 2005 deny he has a values agenda of his own, but he has since come out as a proponent of legalizing what he calls "indoor prostitution." He is hardly without bias.<br><br>The bottom line here is the same as the bottom line for every discussion in this talk area. It is probably possible to reword this so that it is acceptable to everyone. No one denies that Farley has critics! But for this to happen, you must collaborate with others and let them edit the entry. What you have written in inadequate. | |||
| ::Farley actually works closely with working prostitutes. To say she is opposed to "sex worker's rights activists" is inaccurate. | |||
| ::Do you have any cite more recent than protests 22-years ago? She has spent the last decade doing serious field research on the issue of prostitution, which should probably be featured more prominentaly than something that happened over 20 years ago (although you can certainly mention it.) This is another example of something that simply needs to be rewritten. --] 19:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Wow! I bet if I were to state that the sky is blue as one of my arguments, you'd quickly assert that the sky is, in fact, orange. As for the substance of your arguments, once again, the debates between Weitzer and Farley were seen as relevant enough to be published in a series of articles in an academic journal (''Violence Against Women''). This is quite relevant, in spite of your arguments to the contrary. That she is opposed to many sex workers rights activists is something that's clearly cited in the article, something your assertions about her "working closely with working prostitutes" does not change. And newspaper and book references to early activism are suddenly not admissible because they are from articles that old? In a ''biographical'' article which is supposed to discuss the notable events of any individuals life, yet. This is, once again, an example of Axiomatica simply inventing Misplaced Pages policy out of whole cloth. Good grief! ] 19:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::And ''so what'' if Weitzer is not without bias. His views are simply stated as those of a critic, which readers can evaluate accordingly. The idea that an academic must be "unbiased" to evaluate the work of another academic is utter nonsense. ] 20:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Case for inclusion of views critical of Farley== | |||
| Axiomatica continues to mischaracterize my edits as amounting to "Farley's work should be defined by her critics". In fact, we seem to agree on keeping much of the same core content that simply explains Farley's research and views. (With the exception of disputed section 3, above, which is core biographical material Axiomatica and Ninorc don't seem to want included either, for whatever reason.) My position is simply that, as per ] and ], when a subject holds controversial views or has taken controversial research or actions, the views of critics of those views or that research be included. Axiomatica seems to take the novel view that ] somehow carves out a broad exception to ] and that critical views are not to be included at all in biographical articles, even where such articles state the subjects controversial views. That this is clearly not the case, as a simple perusal of articles on ], ], or ] will quickly show. (It has also been suggested by Axiomatica that if there are to be criticisms at all, they must go in a separate "Criticisms" section. This is clearly not the best practices of Misplaced Pages, as ] clearly states. I have kept criticism of her research in her section on "Research" and criticism of her views in the section on "Activism and views", as per these best practices. Check the article on ] for an example of an article where such best practices concerning criticism have been implemented.) | |||
| Apparently, the fact that there are differences of opinion and interpretation between Farley and other academic experts on prostitution and the sex industry, among them ], Barbara Brents, and Kate Hausbeck, is information Axiomatica and Ninorc simply want stifled wholesale and not mentioned in any way. Ditto with the fact that there's a large sex workers' rights movement that also does not agree with Farley's views. | |||
| My answer to the contention that airing of such views may give ] to the voice of her critics, is first, these views are not the views of some tiny insignificant minority, but substantial enough criticisms to be aired in news sources and academic journal debates involving Farley. And second, if points of criticism are proportionately taking up too much of the article in its present form, to simply expand the sections describing the views, and particularly, the research of Melissa Farley, something I have always advocated. | |||
| As per the wording on "sex work", this seems to be a political dispute. Farley has stated that she supports the abolition of stripping and pornography modeling, which she sees as simply different phases of prostitution. The generally accepted term for prostitution, stripping, porn work, etc in general is "sex work". Farley, however, is strongly opposed to the term "sex work" itself, a view apparently shared by Axiomatica and Nonorc, making this point contentious as well. | |||
| I have been going around and around about this for 4 months with Axiomatica, and have been hearing that editor make the same tendentious arguments over and over, and basically sticking to the same wrong-headed argument that biographical articles should not at all include the views of critics. I would like to hear some other views on how the above-mentioned criticisms should be fairly addressed in the context of a Misplaced Pages biographical article. | |||
| ] 18:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is a straw man argument. No one is arguing that critics views should not be included in this article. However, any reading of ] requires that the critics views not overwhelm the article. Is it not possible that these criticisms can be worded in a way that is acceptable to others? Is ] the only person on the planet capable of writing about these criticisms or is it possible that other people have something to add to this article? We are just asking for an opportunity to edit without endless reversions. Work with us here. | |||
| ::I strongly urge ] to create WP entries for the people he mentions. Their views deserve to be represented in Misplaced Pages. However, the purpose of this entry is that it is a bio, not a debate on the issues around legal and illegal prostitution. Certainly their critical views should be mentioned. I don't think Brents and Hausebeck are in the same boat as Weitzer, however since they actually are researchers, and there are many points of agreement in their work and Farley's. | |||
| ::We all agree that information about Farley's work should be expanded. Unfortunately, no one has a chance to edit this article because of ]'s constant and capricious reversions. | |||
| ::The term "sex work" is not "generally accepted" and in fact there are a variety of conflicting definitions for this term. It is not a scientific term. Farley does not use it. To describe her statements on prostitution as statements about "sex work" is to be deliberately misleading as well as inaccurate. Again, this is not an topical article about the term "sex work", it is a bio article where the emphasis should be on accurately reflecting the work of the subject as well as mentioning and linking to critics. | |||
| ::Again with the straw man argument. And again I point out to you that I have no problem including the views of critics. This is boring. I have trouble with the way you have written about the criticisms and I believe there is a way to include the criticism that can be agreeable to all. It is called collaboration. Let's do it. --] 18:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I ask that you not insert your arguments between paragraphs in other people's arguments. It rapidly becomes very difficult to tell who is arguing what when you do this. | |||
| :::If you have no problems with the views of critics being aired in the article, then why do you continue to revert to a version in which the three passages outline in the prior section are wholly excised? | |||
| :::As for your assertion that the term "sex work" is not generally accepted and that the term is not "scientific", that is simply your assertion. A Lexis/Nexis or Web of Science search would reveal otherwise. The term is, in fact, in wide use in social science and social policy publications. Just because you assert otherwise doesn't make it so. | |||
| :::Your calls to "work with us" are kind of laughable – basically, you are the only other major editor (with Ninorc making occasional contributions) and you have shown an ongoing and resolute unwillingness to ''work with me'', as your ongoing demands that I stop editing this article altogether and your requests elsewhere looking for a way to have me blocked from editing attest to. And the fact is, I have been working with other editors – when Ninorc came up with the September 19th version, I reverted it (since it dropped entire passages wholesale), however, I then proceeded reincorporate the vast majority of Ninorc's additions to the article, with the additional step that I did so based on citation of an actual published source by Farley. You have continued to label every single edit I've made to this article as vandalism, even places where I've added references, reworded the article to be improve balance (such as editing to present Farley's views and her critics views in the same tone), adding citations and ISBN numbers, etc and have accordingly reverted to versions that drop these changes entirely. I'd like to work with you, but your actions and rhetoric always seem to come down to "my way or the highway" – either your demands are complied with 100% or I'm "vandalizing" the article. | |||
| :::And once again, Axiomatica, I'm extending the invitation to you to reopen the unsettled ] case and I'm asking for a "yes" or "no" answer out of you about this. I'll take your once again simply ignoring the issue as a "no". If you are refusing mediation, I'll simply take the dispute resolution process to the next level, that is, Arbitration Committee, who's decisions are binding and who have the power to block either or both of us. | |||
| :::] 19:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have already posted on the Cabal page, so I am hardly ignoring it. --] 19:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC) (wasn't logged in when posting, edited to add signature.) | |||
| ::::I have now also added my agreement to Mediation Committee page. I look forward to resolution so we can move forward toward collaboration on a factual bio article. --] 19:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == The term "sex work" == | |||
| User ] has written this in the Farley bio article and refuses to let anyone edit it. | |||
| ::"Farley is a leading proponent of the abolitionist view of sex work" | |||
| This is simply not true. Farley very specifically does not use the term "sex work" and has written about why. It is a misleading and unscientific term that is defined very differently by different people. But ] DOES use the term and seems to insist that everyone else use it too. This bio entry is not the place for a debate about the word "sex work". The fact is that Farley is a proponent of the abolitionist view of prostitution. The sentence should simply say that. This is an example of something that should be quite easy to reach agreement on, but apparently no one but Mr. Werner is allowed to edit this article. --] 19:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Farley is also for the abolition of stripping and pornography, in other words, other versions of sex work. I have pointed out many times that "sex work" is a term that's widespread in social science and social policy literature, a fact that Axiomatica continues to ignore. ] 19:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::]'s opinion about what the term "sex work" means is irrelevant. The term "sex work" is an unscientific term that means different things to different people. Some people think it means all strippers. Other people think it only refers to those strippers who have sex with patrons. Some people think the term "sex work" means anyone who does sexual titillation for a living which could mean Britney Spears and the Victoria's Secret lingerie models. Do you have a cite somewhere that Farley is calling for the abolition of Britney Spears and Victoria's Secret models? Do you possess the one true meaning of the term "sex work"? If not, don't put words in Farley's mouth assuming you know how she feels about all forms of "sex work." She is clearly "a leading proponent of the abolitionist view of prostitution. That is documented. Why not just say that? Let's just stick to the facts here. --] 07:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Why don't you ask for a ]? ] <small>]</small> 04:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I did, and somebody removed it from the request que based on the erroneous notion that this article was still in Mediation Cabal, though that case was closed about a month ago. In any event, I have requested that the case go to Mediation Committee. If that falls through, I'll try to get a third opinion once again. ] 04:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| As a note, we cannot say ""Farley is a leading proponent of xxxx" unless that claim is made in a published third party source. See ]. ] <small>]</small> 04:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I have been thinking about that. The source article says "prostitution abolitionist", so that's probably what should go there. What I do continue to dispute is any wholesale ban on use of the word "sex work" anywhere in the article, particularly in reference to the sex workers' rights movement, who explicitly do self designate as such. ] 04:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::COULD THIS BE CONSENSUS? HALLELUJA. So we are in agreement that the phrase should be "Farley is a leading proponent of the abolition of prostitution." Yes? --] 06:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, unless there a reference turns up stating that Farley is for sex work abolition. ] 15:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I came over from the Gender studies notice board, this issue seems to be resolved. I'm going to delist it. --] (]) 19:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Description of Weitzer's views == | |||
| This keeps going back and forth. Weitzer is mentioned as a notable critic of Farley, something I feel belongs in the article based on a noteworthy debate between the two in the journal ''Violence Against Women''. ] adds the following language: | |||
| :"(most notably by sociologist Ronald Weitzer whose "two track" approach favors decriminalizing or tolerating indoor prostitution which he sees as imposing no harm on the community and who terms efforts to end prostitution a "moral crusade.")" | |||
| For brevity and NPOV reasons, I (]) shortened this to: | |||
| :"(most notably by sociologist Ronald Weitzer, a proponent of the full decriminalization of indoor prostitution)" | |||
| Now ], an editor who has made a number of edits to the articles ], ], and ] articles, removed this information so it reads as follows: | |||
| :"most notably by sociologist Ronald Weitzer" | |||
| For the time being, I'm going to stay out of the debate as to whether they exposition of Weitzer's POV should be there or whether it is unduly prejudicial, though I think this is one of several issues that will need to be settled in the Mediation Committee case (linked to at the top of this page). I invite ] to add themselves as an additional party to the Mediation Committee case if they wish to participate. | |||
| My view is simply that Weitzer and his criticisms need to be mentioned in the section where Farley's research is discussed, and that if Weitzer's views are to be introduced, then long-winded and prejudicial text (like the version introduced by Ninorc, above) should be avoided. Otherwise, I leave it open how Weitzer is to be introduced and/or contextualized. | |||
| ] 02:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Nevada == | |||
| I notice that her most recent book on Nevada seems to keep disappearing and reappearing. Whatever one thinks about the merits of this work (and it has been heavily criticised - most notably by the Sociology Department at U Nevada Las Vegas) - it is a major work in the sense that it has a large influence on the debate over legal prostitution in Nevada. ] 03:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Link farm? == | |||
| This article currently have a lot of links. I would like to see some of them plowed back into the article text as refs, even if this requires new assertions be made in the text.--] 22:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The intention is to put some of these back into the article. Progress on this article has been slow due to the contentious nature of this article, but I hope to start on it again soon, since there no appear to be no challenges to going forward with the article. ] 15:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == 2008 Additions and Edits == | |||
| I have added a recent New York Times Op-Ed co-authored by the subject of the bio. | |||
| I changed the year from 2007 to 2008 in "As of 2008, she is currently director of Prostitution Research and Education..." | |||
| Also changed the word "report" to "book" in reference to the book ''Prostitution and Trafficking in Nevada: Making the connections''. | |||
| This entry still needs a lot of work. | |||
| ] (]) 06:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Are you prepared to enter into the mediation process in good faith, a process that you've walked out on on no less than two occasions now? ] (]) 18:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::On the contrary, I have not walked out on any mediation. I believe in the last mediation you were told to stop cursing so much and cut back on the hostile rhetoric. I must confess I did not memorize it all and if absolutely necessary, I will go back and reread everything, but I believe we came to resolution. For example the consensus was reached that the term "sex work" was inappropriate. I'm always happy to participate in civil discourse and mediation, so if there is something lingering, do let us resolve it. ] (]) 21:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Unless there is a reason not to, I am going to archive the 2007 discussion so we can start with a clean slate here. ] (]) | |||
| :Oh no you don't – the controversy around this article needs to be kept out in the open. If there is a new round of argument, then by all means, archive the old debate, but not until then. I consider these issues to be very much unresolved. ] (]) 00:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I've re-edited the first sentence to try to bring some neutrality to it. Note to Peter Werner, please stop reverting all edits to this article, you were reprimanded for this once before. Thank you. ] (]) 21:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :OK, at this point you're outright LYING. Show me where I have been "reprimanded" in any capacity. You are also being dishonest about not walking out on mediation – I have tried setting up moderated mediation with you TWICE now, ] and ], and in both cases you completely abandoned all Misplaced Pages editing as soon as negotiations were to begin, only to pop up months later, well after third-party mediation has closed, and begin making the same edits again. You've made it abundantly clear that you are not willing to negotiate in good faith when mediated by a third party who might actually ask you to compromise in some way. I do not consider any issues whatsoever settled and I will continue to revert any clearly POV edits I run across from any party and will not let your bad-faith editing go without notice. ] (]) 00:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Anyone can read the history of this entry for themselves. It's all in the record. iamcuriousblue akd Peter Werner has chased away anyone who tried to add substantive information to this entry. I happen to travel a lot and don't look at Misplaced Pages for weeks at at time. By the time I return to this entry I find Mr. Werner has reverted everyone's work and chased them away. He has filled the entry with biased language and links to somewhat dubious publications. He reverts each and every entry that attempts to correct bad information or enter new information. It took MONTHS and a mediation to get the term "sex worker" out of here when it should have taken about 5 minutes.] (]) 00:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Is there a need for another mediation? Or the re-opening of one of the previous mediations? | |||
| ] 09:33,, 13 April 2008 (EST) | |||
| :I would like to re-open formal mediation with ] in good faith, however, anytime we have any kind of third-party mediation, this user simply leaves Misplaced Pages and turns up again months later after the mediation process has closed. I do find this to be highly obstructionistic behavior, probably one worthy of taking this issue to the next step, arbitration. One thing is for sure – given the rather intense nature of disagreement between the two parties, and my feeling that negotiating with this other editor is on par with trying to have a conversation with a brick wall, I cannot negotiate with this person without the presence of third-party mediators or arbiters. ] (]) 17:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::What exactly is the issue we are mediating here? iamcuriousblue reverts every entry. Do we need mediators on every sentence? Or can we all just acknowlege that iamcuriousblue has an unwarranted sense of ownership and entitlement on this article and he needs to stop blocking every single edit. If he cannot manage to let other people edit here, he needs to be blocked from this entry.] (]) 00:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Like it or not, there is a dispute between two editors, you and I, which has long since reached a complete impasse. It requires third-party mediation, something you have so far pointedly avoided. BTW, the editing history will clearly show that I have not reverted every edit, and in fact, there are a number of edits of yours I have not reverted. I do revert when wholesale dumping of cited, referenced content takes place, and I make no apologies for that. ] (]) 15:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Dispute == | |||
| (Moving this section down to the bottom of the page.) | |||
| Is everyone confortable with this version of this article? I would say that there needs to be a reference to where the term "radical feminist" over simply "feminist" comes from (i.e. did she call herself a radical feminist?), if no reference can be made for nutrality purposes it should probably be removed. | |||
| Otherwise, the article appears ok. Devoid of much substance, but the substance that is there appears to be, for the most part, nuetral. | |||
| --] (]) 13:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I think the article is OK as well. As for the terms "feminist" and "radical feminist" – for feminist, check reference #2 (the "Off Our Backs" article) – this is a ''self-description'' by Melissa Farley (albeit, misspelled "fiminist" in the article itself), and I believe she's given this self-description elsewhere. For the life of me, I can't even see why this is a matter of dispute. The fact that her critics call her perspective "radical feminist" is also referenced – Ronald Weitzer states this explicitly in the series of journal articles in which he debates with Farley, I believe Brents and Hausbeck have also stated this, and Tracy Quan has referred to Farley as coming from "an extreme kind of feminism". I'll also note that "]" is not even inherently a pejorative – there is a whole branch of feminism called "radical feminism" who's best-known exponents are ] and ], and its this branch of feminism that Farley is part of. ] (]) 17:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::This article is in no way undisputed or neutral. What we have here is a biased editor, iamcuriousblue, who disagrees vehemently with the research findings and writings of the subject of this bio. Dr. Farley's studies of hundreds of prostitutes in multiple countries have shown significant statistical evidence that prostitution is harmful to prostitutes. iamcuriousblue has admitted elsewhere on the Internet that he is a john and a "friend" of prostitutes and he hates Farley and her work. As a result, almost every sentence and link is an attempt to spin and denegrate a serious body of work. What is that serious body of work? You won't find out in this entry. Every attempt to add material or even make the article more neutral has been reversed by iamcurious blue. | |||
| ::Obviously, iamcuriousblue has the same right as anyone else to edit this entry. However he seems to think he is the sole owner and arbiter of this article and as a result, this article is not only incomplete, it is extremely biased against the subject of the entry. | |||
| ::In my opinion, either iamcuriousblue should be blocked from editing this article, or it should be deleted.] (]) 00:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::First, I regard your reference to me as a "john" as a ] and am noting it here as such. Second, yes I have a point of view, but I think I have made every effort not to bias this article toward my point of view. And in spite of your branding me a "biased editor", you yourself are clearly coming at editing this article with a point of view, something you have been entirely disingenuous and dishonest about since you first started editing this article. You have repeatedly attempted to entirely remove content that is contrary to the "spin" that you want to have put on Farley and her research, even when that content is clearly cited and referenced. I think if anybody needs to be blocked, it should be you, for your ongoing destructive edits, obstinate refusal to make an attempt at reaching consensus, personal attacks, and your clear and pointed avoidance of all third-party mediation around this issue. ] (]) 15:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I certainly did not mean the term "john" to be a personal attack. I thought you were quite open and even proud of the fact based on your public web discussion about it. I do apologize if I offended you with this term. As to spin, I don't think there should be ANY spin in here. I think it should be a simple recitation of facts about the subject and their work. If that is not possible, it should be deleted. I definitely don't think it should be a platform for people who despise the researcher and their work. Just let the facts stand for themselves and go make your case for legalized prostitution over in the prostitution article. I don't understand why it has to be such a struggle for you to let other people edit this article. ] (]) 21:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The fact is, it is you who have been reverting content by dropping content contributed by others. So why are ''you'' not allowing contributions that don't agree with ''your'' point of view. ] (]) 21:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I guess this kind of behavior has worked in the past to drive off contributors to the page, but it is unworthy of Misplaced Pages. Let's just keep this focused on the content of the article please. I have been trying to edit the first sentence for over a month and you continually revert it. Please either explain your reversions or let the edit stand.] (]) 23:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == "johns" == | |||
| ::::::We've been over this, you've given completely specious reasons for your edits, I've offered third-party mediation. So far you've refused. The offer is still open, if you'll actually engage in the process in good faith. ] (]) 00:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I suggest that the first use of the term "johns" be quoted. Despite its common use it remains a slang term. --] (]) 10:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Interesting point, but I believe most academic articles about the subject use the term "john" without quotes. Or the more neutral/academic, "men who buy sex", though there's a conflict here (as there is in several places, eg, "prostituted woman") between Farley's usage of terminology and usage in academic sociology more generally. ] (]) 05:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == The First Sentence == | |||
| == Category:Criminals == | |||
| In an attempt to just get this article down to the facts, I have edited the first sentence to remove bias and add clarity. | |||
| I just want to note that the repeated adding of ] to this article is a blatant violation of ] and ]. I will also note that ]'s edit summary statement "She is a criminal, so I added the category tag. Any attempted chages will be reverted" is a pretty blatant violation of ], not to mention provocative and not one that could be excused as an unfortunate statement made in the heat of an argument. | |||
| This edit, of course, is a serious over-application of this category, which is one that is to be used *cautiously* for biographies of career criminals (though in most cases, a more specific subcategory would be used). If this category were to actually be used for anybody who has been convicted in court of a crime, everybody from ] to ] would be placed in the "criminal" category. Obviously, this isn't done in those or other biographies and should not be done here. | |||
| Melissa Farley (born 1942) is an American feminist research and clinical psychologist and anti-pornography and anti-prostitution activist. Farley is best known for her studies of the effects of prostitution, trafficking, and sexual violence. | |||
| I do want to caution against going in the opposite direction, namely, removal of the statement "Farley was arrested 13 different times in 9 different states for these actions." The inclusion of this information, though clearly supported with citations from several news sources and a book chapter by Farley herself, was a repeated point of contention and edit warring by a now-banned editor who was a rabid supporter of Farley. I caution against this, because I have been noticing an overzealous trend on what has been broadly called "BLP culture" to blindly purge all contentious or negative statements out any BLP article, to the point of moving away from NPOV toward "Sympathetic Point of View". ] (]) 05:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| to this: | |||
| == Melissa Farley and the American Psychological Association == | |||
| Melissa Farley (born 1942) is an American research and clinical psychologist who is best known for her studies of the effects of prostitution, trafficking, and sexual violence. | |||
| I removed the claim by 79.69.82.238 that the complaint had been successful. The APA stated that such matters were best dealt with in the academic field (as freedom of academic expression), and not a matter for censure or removal. But they also stated it was concerned and would keep an eye out. Other complaints had been made. - (unsigned, undated) | |||
| I again removed the comment Farley has had her membership revoked by the APA. The reference given as evidence of Farley’s removal,(http://www.apapracticecentral.org/index.aspx), points only to a Practice Central page, with resources for psychologists. It does not provide proof that Farley has been dropped by the APA. - (unsigned, undated) | |||
| Reasons: | |||
| Melissa Farley is no longer accredited psychologist in APA after facing ethics violations for academic fraud. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| 1. The term "feminist research and clinical psychologist" is just sloppy writing. It can be read as either a feminist who is a researcher or as someone who researches feminists. The term feminist researcher is like saying Baptist researcher or libertarian researcher. The fact that a person is a baptist may or may not have anything to do with their profession and should not be used as a modifier in this sentence. | |||
| :Please provide a citation quickly or this will be taken to ]. Incidentally, the APA is not a regulatory agency or organization and does not "accredit" psychologists. ] (]) 20:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :: Burden of proof is justify the claim she is member of APA http://search.apa.org/search?limited=true§ion=membership&query=Farley <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :::She is , membership in the APA is voluntary, the article states nothing about her membership or lack of membership in the APA, and you have no citation for your claim claims that some sort of disciplinary action was taken. ] (]) 19:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::1) She is registered not licensed, very different things. 2) Membership of third part organisation is irrelevant to claim she is accredited member of APA especially given that a search of their membership list proves she is NOT a member. 3) The burden of proof remains to prove she is a member. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :::::I see no issue worth sweating over. The article as it stands right now does not try to say that Farley is a member of the American Psychological Association—it does not try to leverage such a membership to add credibility. Farley's research is credible because of multiple citations from other researchers. ] (]) 18:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| 2. I removed the 3rd reference "Slick S.F. posters advocate decriminalizing prostitution." This is a news article from 1995 about a group advocating decriminalizing prostitution. There is no reason for it to be here. If the purpose of the reference is to prove she is a research psychologist, that is hardly in doubt as the article links to her research. In addition there are many other articles here that do the same thing. I submit that this reference is placed here because iamcuriousblue wants a lot of links to pro sexworker articles. This reference adds nothing except publicity for sex workers so I removed it. | |||
| The link to the APA is dead and leads nowhere. As for her research being "credible" just because other researchers cite them who does? Misplaced Pages is ment to be unbiased and not take sides on the pornography debate. If it's from radical feminists than it doesn't count. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| 3. I don't think you can call Farley an anti-pornography activist on the basis of activities in 1985. You could possibly say she was an anti-pornography activist 23 years ago. By the way, showing up at a protest does not make you an activist. But in any case, that is not what she is known for and doesn't belong in the first sentence. Ditto with anti-prostitution. | |||
| ==Requesting controversy section== | |||
| 4. I added a ref to the end of the second sentence that describes Farley and gives an example of her work. | |||
| The fact that Melissa Farley has advocated for the destruction of pornography stores and was arrested for it sounds like it warrents a controversy section since it sounds like she was breaking the law to do so. Even if that counts as civil disobedience it still looks like the fact that she broke the law sounds like it caused a bit of controversy.<small>— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)</span></small> | |||
| == Removal of reliably-sourced content == | |||
| This first sentence is now a neutral description of the subject of the bio.:::: | |||
| {{Ut|Dragnet54}}, who may have a COI, has ]. ]] 17:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :Once again, you are making disputed edits. All of this was supposed to be discussed in third-party mediation, which you've so far strenuously avoided. I intend to take this to the next step, which is Arbitration. This can force a settlement of this dispute, even if you're not present, even if you choose to run away from the third-party negotiation process, as you're so prone to do. | |||
| :Indeed, Dragnet54 has removed reliably-sourced content, and overtly biased this article into one that is purely laudatory toward Farley, and endorses her questionable "research" on prostitution. The blatantly POV term "prostituted woman" is even reintroduced to this article. I've been bold and reverted the lot of this, and will later take a closer look at the reverted edits to see if anything of worth was added in those changes and re-add such content if I find it. | |||
| :As for getting tied up in discussion with you without a mediator, forget it – I've been round and round with you, you pretty much just do whatever the hell you want and event reasons for it off the top of your head. Trying to talk to you is useless – you have the listening and reasoning skills of a brick wall. For my part, I intend on reverting your destructive edits (though, for the past month anyway, I haven't had a problem with what you've ''added'' to the article, though that's been very little). ] (]) 22:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :In general, this article has been a target of advocates of Melissa Farley's point of view since a close associate of Farley, Nikki Craft, introduced this article as a hagiography of Farley over 10 years ago. This article needs to remain balanced, neither favoring Farley's view, nor those of her critics, and not endorsing Farley's claims. This is the same standard that an article about any controversial author or researcher (example: ]) should be held to. ] (]) 18:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have looked around and I find no open mediation on this article. If you want to open a mediation or arbitration, please feel free to do so. As to why you would revert this particular edit...I don't think any object view would find it to be a "destructive" edit. Indeed it is fair, objective, explained in clear language, and makes the article more neutral. Please stop reverting edits or explain why you are doing it. Just being mad at me is not an explanation. Let's just stay focused on the article and on improving it, please. ] (]) 23:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == External links modified == | |||
| == Suggestions for edits to this article by section == | |||
| Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
| '''Research''' | |||
| Despite multiple people's attempts to add relevant and sourced material to this section, it has now been whittled down to almost nothing. There needs to be more information about the actual research that has brought on such controversy. In addition there is incorrect information here. As has been pointed out in the past, Farley has researched in MORE than 9 countries. Farley has authored more than 25 peer-reviewed studies of prostitution, but iamcuriousblue has edited that back to "several". This is just an example of how the author has insisted on denigrating and dismissing the actual body of work. This section needs to be fixed if iamcuriousblue will ever let anyone else edit it. | |||
| I have just modified 3 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: | |||
| '''Criticism of her research''' | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071217174035/http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2007/Sep-07-Fri-2007/news/16519321.html to http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2007/Sep-07-Fri-2007/news/16519321.html | |||
| You will notice there are more references in the "Criticism of her research" than in the Research itself. I think that's pretty indicative of the bias here. Then we have "the critic" - the critic cited is a sociology professor whose background is in an entirely unrelated field and who has written a few articles on prostitution. He claims that research with actual prostitutes is "too difficult", but seems fine with criticizing those who actually do it. When we put his lack of expertise up against someone who has interviewed hundreds of people, and has written 2 books, more than 25 peer-reviewed studies, and hundreds of articles on the subject, he doesn't really measure up. | |||
| *Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.woodhullfoundation.org/content/otherpublications/WeitzerVAW-1.pdf | |||
| *Corrected formatting/usage for http://swopeast.blogspot.com/2007/09/response-to-melissa-farley.html | |||
| When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. | |||
| But even if he is kept in as a critic, this section must be rewritten. He criticizes how her finding have been used? That is not criticism of her research. Either the header needs to be changed or the last half of the first sentence needs to be deleted. | |||
| {{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} | |||
| '''Activism and Views''' | |||
| First of all activism and views are two separate things here. "Views" is a traditional bio header in Misplaced Pages that lays out the subjects views. Activism is something entirely different. Here they are mixed up to give the impression that this researcher is mainly an activist which is just not the truth. These need to be separate headers. | |||
| Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 04:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
| The sentence "Such an approach is based on the point of view that prostitutes are the weaker partner in the transaction and are exploited" is just an editorial opinion and should be deleted. | |||
| == ¿Should not we mention that she is a liar? == | |||
| Then we have this fine sentence: "She is also largely opposed to sex workers' rights activists and groups, such as COYOTE, which advocate legalizing or decriminalizing both prostitution and the purchase of sexual services." In September 07 mediators unanimously opined that the term "sex worker" has no place in this article. The subject of the bio does not use the term, so to say she thinks "x" about sex work or "y" about sex work is patently false. Even worse the sentence says the subject of the bio is ...opposed...to activists and groups. I don't even know what that means. Does that mean she doesn't like them or doesn't want them to exist or just disagrees with them or what? This is just another attempt to insert links to pro-prostitution articles and promote COYOTE. The last sentence about what sex workers think belongs in an article about sex workers, not an article about Farley. | |||
| She just makes shit up. This is what a sexworker says about her lies: | |||
| If you are going to call Farley an activist, you'll have to have more than the fact that she did something 23 years ago and she testified at a hearing. Farley is asked to testify in front of government bodies and hearings around the world all the time. She testified in front of Congress. She is an expert in the field. This whole paragraph is just a bunch of links to things iamcurious blue wants to promote, like kink.com. | |||
| http://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/resources/frequently-told-lies/ | |||
| '''External links''' | |||
| There are a number of recent and relevant items not included in here that should be and a number of irrelevant links that need to be deleted. Also, when someone publishes a response to the writing of another, it is not necessarily a "debate" between them, it is a response. | |||
| :: Considering that wiki guidelines do not even allow linking to pages that have full copies of the complaint letters people have written against her (because they're not official enough), that would be considered bias. Whether that linking standard should be bent a little, considering that this is information in favour of a persecuted group being informally maintained by the members & allies of said group because official sources will not do so, is a matter for more experienced wikipedians to discuss.~ | |||
| '''In Summary''' | |||
| As long as iamcurious blue deletes each and every edit of anyone who tries to fix this entry, these changes will probably not get made. It is hard to imagine mediators hanging in through each and every one of these edits. So in order to fix this badly biased entry, either iamcuriousblue needs to back off and let other people edit, or the entry should just be deleted.] (]) 23:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 12:30, 16 November 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Melissa Farley article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4 |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
 | It is requested that an image or photograph of Melissa Farley be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. | Upload |
 Archives |
"johns"
I suggest that the first use of the term "johns" be quoted. Despite its common use it remains a slang term. --96.233.84.118 (talk) 10:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting point, but I believe most academic articles about the subject use the term "john" without quotes. Or the more neutral/academic, "men who buy sex", though there's a conflict here (as there is in several places, eg, "prostituted woman") between Farley's usage of terminology and usage in academic sociology more generally. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Category:Criminals
I just want to note that the repeated adding of Category:Criminals to this article is a blatant violation of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. I will also note that User:RyanRetroWickawack's edit summary statement "She is a criminal, so I added the category tag. Any attempted chages will be reverted" is a pretty blatant violation of WP:CIVIL, not to mention provocative and not one that could be excused as an unfortunate statement made in the heat of an argument.
This edit, of course, is a serious over-application of this category, which is one that is to be used *cautiously* for biographies of career criminals (though in most cases, a more specific subcategory would be used). If this category were to actually be used for anybody who has been convicted in court of a crime, everybody from Robert Downey, Jr. to Martin Luther King, Jr. would be placed in the "criminal" category. Obviously, this isn't done in those or other biographies and should not be done here.
I do want to caution against going in the opposite direction, namely, removal of the statement "Farley was arrested 13 different times in 9 different states for these actions." The inclusion of this information, though clearly supported with citations from several news sources and a book chapter by Farley herself, was a repeated point of contention and edit warring by a now-banned editor who was a rabid supporter of Farley. I caution against this, because I have been noticing an overzealous trend on what has been broadly called "BLP culture" to blindly purge all contentious or negative statements out any BLP article, to the point of moving away from NPOV toward "Sympathetic Point of View". Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Melissa Farley and the American Psychological Association
I removed the claim by 79.69.82.238 that the complaint had been successful. The APA stated that such matters were best dealt with in the academic field (as freedom of academic expression), and not a matter for censure or removal. But they also stated it was concerned and would keep an eye out. Other complaints had been made. - (unsigned, undated)
I again removed the comment Farley has had her membership revoked by the APA. The reference given as evidence of Farley’s removal,(http://www.apapracticecentral.org/index.aspx), points only to a Practice Central page, with resources for psychologists. It does not provide proof that Farley has been dropped by the APA. - (unsigned, undated)
Melissa Farley is no longer accredited psychologist in APA after facing ethics violations for academic fraud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.208.204.151 (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Please provide a citation quickly or this will be taken to Misplaced Pages:Oversight. Incidentally, the APA is not a regulatory agency or organization and does not "accredit" psychologists. Location (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Burden of proof is justify the claim she is member of APA http://search.apa.org/search?limited=true§ion=membership&query=Farley — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.208.204.151 (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- She is licensed in California, membership in the APA is voluntary, the article states nothing about her membership or lack of membership in the APA, and you have no citation for your claim claims that some sort of disciplinary action was taken. Location (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- 1) She is registered not licensed, very different things. 2) Membership of third part organisation is irrelevant to claim she is accredited member of APA especially given that a search of their membership list proves she is NOT a member. 3) The burden of proof remains to prove she is a member. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.208.204.151 (talk) 15:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- She is licensed in California, membership in the APA is voluntary, the article states nothing about her membership or lack of membership in the APA, and you have no citation for your claim claims that some sort of disciplinary action was taken. Location (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Burden of proof is justify the claim she is member of APA http://search.apa.org/search?limited=true§ion=membership&query=Farley — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.208.204.151 (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- I see no issue worth sweating over. The article as it stands right now does not try to say that Farley is a member of the American Psychological Association—it does not try to leverage such a membership to add credibility. Farley's research is credible because of multiple citations from other researchers. Binksternet (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
The link to the APA is dead and leads nowhere. As for her research being "credible" just because other researchers cite them who does? Misplaced Pages is ment to be unbiased and not take sides on the pornography debate. If it's from radical feminists than it doesn't count. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 17:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Requesting controversy section
The fact that Melissa Farley has advocated for the destruction of pornography stores and was arrested for it sounds like it warrents a controversy section since it sounds like she was breaking the law to do so. Even if that counts as civil disobedience it still looks like the fact that she broke the law sounds like it caused a bit of controversy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 17:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Removal of reliably-sourced content
Dragnet54, who may have a COI, has removed reliably-sourced content. Miniapolis 17:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed, Dragnet54 has removed reliably-sourced content, and overtly biased this article into one that is purely laudatory toward Farley, and endorses her questionable "research" on prostitution. The blatantly POV term "prostituted woman" is even reintroduced to this article. I've been bold and reverted the lot of this, and will later take a closer look at the reverted edits to see if anything of worth was added in those changes and re-add such content if I find it.
- In general, this article has been a target of advocates of Melissa Farley's point of view since a close associate of Farley, Nikki Craft, introduced this article as a hagiography of Farley over 10 years ago. This article needs to remain balanced, neither favoring Farley's view, nor those of her critics, and not endorsing Farley's claims. This is the same standard that an article about any controversial author or researcher (example: Bjørn Lomborg) should be held to. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Melissa Farley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071217174035/http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2007/Sep-07-Fri-2007/news/16519321.html to http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2007/Sep-07-Fri-2007/news/16519321.html
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.woodhullfoundation.org/content/otherpublications/WeitzerVAW-1.pdf
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://swopeast.blogspot.com/2007/09/response-to-melissa-farley.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
¿Should not we mention that she is a liar?
She just makes shit up. This is what a sexworker says about her lies:
http://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/resources/frequently-told-lies/
- Considering that wiki guidelines do not even allow linking to pages that have full copies of the complaint letters people have written against her (because they're not official enough), that would be considered bias. Whether that linking standard should be bent a little, considering that this is information in favour of a persecuted group being informally maintained by the members & allies of said group because official sources will not do so, is a matter for more experienced wikipedians to discuss.~
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- Biography articles of living people
- Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors
- B-Class biography articles
- B-Class biography (science and academia) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (science and academia) articles
- Science and academia work group articles
- Misplaced Pages requested photographs of scientists and academics
- Misplaced Pages requested photographs of people
- Old requests for Biography peer review
- WikiProject Biography articles
- B-Class Gender studies articles
- Mid-importance Gender studies articles
- WikiProject Gender studies articles
- B-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
- Mid-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
- B-Class Sex work articles
- Low-importance Sex work articles
- WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
- B-Class Pornography articles
- Low-importance Pornography articles
- B-Class Low-importance Pornography articles
- WikiProject Pornography articles
- B-Class California articles
- Low-importance California articles
- B-Class San Francisco Bay Area articles
- Low-importance San Francisco Bay Area articles
- San Francisco Bay Area task force articles
- WikiProject California articles
- B-Class Women writers articles
- Low-importance Women writers articles
- WikiProject Women articles
- WikiProject Women writers articles
- B-Class psychology articles
- Low-importance psychology articles
- WikiProject Psychology articles
- B-Class Women scientists articles
- Low-importance Women scientists articles
- WikiProject Women scientists articles
- Misplaced Pages requested images of scientists and academics
- Misplaced Pages requested images of people of the United States