ebooksgratis.com

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.

CLASSICISTRANIERI HOME PAGE - YOUTUBE CHANNEL
Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Terms and Conditions
Talk:Melissa Farley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk:Melissa Farley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Melissa Farley article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] 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.--Axiomatica 21:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moved Guardian article to News Articles section

Moved this article to News since it is a news article. --Axiomatica 21:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. Iamcuriousblue 03:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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.--Axiomatica 20:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No problems with this – good change. I do, however, have big problems with the blatantly POV edit by User:Ninorc (a wholesale removal of ALL perspectives critical of Farley, in total violation of WP:NPOV) that proceeded yours and have reverted that edit. Iamcuriousblue 21:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by User:141.156.173.2

  • 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia process as to justify barring him from participating in any editing of this page. If Mr. Werner wishes to use Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia audience without stooping to engage the kind of guerilla intrusions, exclusions, and abuse of process in which Mr. Werner indulges.

    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 Wikipedia's arbiters to step in to halt his exploitation of the process that they provide to safeguard the value of this democratic encyclopedia. 141.156.173.2 23:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
According to User:141.156.173.2, a version with any statements critical of the subject is a "vandalized" version. This is utterly incorrect – WP:NPOV 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. User:Ninorc, 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 WP:NPOV. 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 WP:NPOV, something I cannot say about the edits of User:Ninorc. Iamcuriousblue 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 "before" and "after" view of your edits showing this to be the case. Iamcuriousblue 17:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
On rereading the statement by User:141.156.173.2, it strikes me that this user has a basic misunderstanding about Wikipedia 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 Sex worker. This is, of course, not the way Wikipedia works at all. I would advise User:141.156.173.2 to read up on the basics of Wikipedia, here at Wikipedia:Wikipedia in brief. I would also advise them to read over WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP as I think that might help dispel some confusion this user might have as to the nature of Wikipedia. Iamcuriousblue 03:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
One more note – If you note the edits I made immediately following my reversion of User:Ninorc'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 User:Ninorc attempted. What I have categorically reverted was the dumping of cited and referenced material that was only dropped because User:Ninorc happen to disagree with it. Iamcuriousblue 17:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I have taken the serious step of reverting back to the User:Ninorc version. It seems Peter Werner (iamcuriousblue) is determined to relentlessly carry out his crusade against Dr. Farley in her Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia entry.--Axiomatica 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 User:Ninorc are also coming from you own POV toward Melissa Farley and that neither of you are making any effort to comply with WP:NPOV 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 User:Ninorc are engaged in. Iamcuriousblue 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 WP:NPOV 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. --Axiomatica 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 Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-06-25_Melissa_Farley. 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. Iamcuriousblue 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? --Axiomatica 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. Iamcuriousblue 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? Iamcuriousblue 09:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ninorc'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. --Axiomatica 06:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

3) For purposes of citing sources: "Articles and posts on Wikipedia or other open wikis should never be used as third-party 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 radical feminist 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 User:Ninorc, and therefore violates Wikipedia rules against original research and using Wikipedia as a soapbox.

I'm open to discussion of these edits and other changes to this article. However, I would suggest to User:Ninorc that he or she perhaps familiarize themselves a bit more with Wikipedia's rules and guidelines, especially concerning referencing, verifiable sources, and what constitutes original research. Iamcuriousblue 06:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Please keep your condescending tone out of this discussion. Wikipedia 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.--Axiomatica 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 Wikipedia 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.--Axiomatica 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. Iamcuriousblue 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. --Axiomatica 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 plagiarism and copyright violation, and very much in violation of Wikipedia'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. Iamcuriousblue 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Axiomatica (talk • contribs) 11:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
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. Iamcuriousblue 18:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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.--Axiomatica 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 WP:NPOV and WP:CONTROVERSY. What part of this central Wikipedia guideline User:Axiomatica and User:Ninorc 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 Wikipedia tenet to assume good faith, 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 User:Axiomatica 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. Iamcuriousblue 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. --Axiomatica 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 Wikipedia 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. --Axiomatica 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. Iamcuriousblue 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.) Iamcuriousblue 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? --Axiomatica 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. Iamcuriousblue 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 Iamcuriousblue 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 Peter Werner's personal campaign for prostitution and against Dr. Farley. --Axiomatica 07:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion to most neutral recent version

The version of this article posted by User:Ninorc 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 Peter Werner 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.--Axiomatica 08:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)--Axiomatica 08:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

What you are suggesting is a Point of View Fork, something expressly disallowed by Wikipedia rules. Again, there is no good reason to do this, since WP:NPOV and WP:CONTROVERSY 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 Wikipedia rules and guidelines call for. Iamcuriousblue 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 WP:BLP. To quote: "Wikipedia 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 Iamcuriousblue 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. --Axiomatica 09:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- sigh- WP:BLP does not in any way represent an exception to WP:NPOV, and you really need to stop interpreting it as such. WP:BLP 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 WP:BLP have been fulfilled, your baseless assertions to the contrary notwithstanding. Iamcuriousblue 09:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page Protection

Per a request filed at requests for page protection, this page has been protected from editing until unsolved issues are resolved. Please try and keep the conversation civil, and let's find a clear solution everyone can agree one. Jmlk17 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 User:Axiomatica coming to any kind of agreement at all, much less consensus, so long as the conversation is only between me and User:Axiomatica, 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 User:Axiomatica to reopen Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-06-25_Melissa_Farley. 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. Iamcuriousblue 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 Wikipedia 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. --Axiomatica 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 WP:NPOV 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 Wikipedia 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. Iamcuriousblue 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 Wikipedia 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. --Axiomatica 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. Iamcuriousblue 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 Wikipedia, 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. --Axiomatica 12:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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/w/index.php?title=Melissa_Farley&oldid=160650614

Thank you. --Axiomatica 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. Iamcuriousblue 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. --Axiomatica 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.) Iamcuriousblue 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. --Axiomatica 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?

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 Wikipedia 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. Iamcuriousblue 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. --Axiomatica 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". Iamcuriousblue 12:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

{{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 (CBM · talk) 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 dispute resolution process. Otherwise, protecting the article will be followed by editor's losing their editing privileges for edit-warring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jossi (talk • contribs) 15:40, 27 September 2007

We already tried peer mediation. Iamcuriousblue 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 Wikipedia look stupid, something none of us want. The user Iamcuriousblue needs to learn to work with others. --Axiomatica 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 Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-06-25_Melissa_Farley, 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 Arbitration Committee, especially since our disagreement goes to fundamental points of Wikipedia policy. Iamcuriousblue 17:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Iamcuriousblue 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 Iamcuriousblue harassing and censoring yet another user, Ninorc 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. Iamcuriousblue 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 WP:BLP--Axiomatica 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 Wikipedia.

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 WP:BLP, 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. Iamcuriousblue 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. Iamcuriousblue 15:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I am pleased to see that the Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia page, presumably to direct the reader to quotations from Weitzer that criticize Farley's work.

Wikipedia 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 [hide]

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? 141.156.170.20 20:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think the lack of information on criticisms of Ronald Weitzer 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 WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY, especially as this relates to WP:BLP. 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.

I think your view reflects an unfortunate view of Wikipedia 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 WP:NPOV and WP:CONTROVERSY and keep in mind that biographical articles are not some kind of magical exception to these rules. In the articles on Ronald Reagan and Bjørn Lomborg, 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. Iamcuriousblue 21:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. Iamcuriousblue 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, Iamcuriousblue simply discredits himself. No one is disputing that criticisms belong here. They just need to meet the policy of WP:BLP. 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? Wikipedia is a COLLABORATIVE effort, let's collaborate. --Axiomatica 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. Iamcuriousblue 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. --Axiomatica 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. Iamcuriousblue 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. --Axiomatica 18:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Which sections are in dispute

I want to outline the dispute here. This is the version I last edited and is the version I think should be built on further. This is the version User:Ninorc and User:Axiomatica 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 Ronald Weitzer, 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 sex workers' rights activists and groups, such as COYOTE, 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 civil disobedience campaign of public destruction of bookstore-owned copies of Penthouse and Hustler (which they denounced as violent pornography) 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 "sex work" is allowed to be used at all in the article. Iamcuriousblue 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.

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. --Axiomatica 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 Wikipedia policy out of whole cloth. Good grief! Iamcuriousblue 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. Iamcuriousblue 20:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 WP:NPOV and WP:CONTROVERSY, 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 WP:BLP somehow carves out a broad exception to WP:NPOV 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 George Galloway, Ronald Reagan, or Bjørn Lomborg 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 Wikipedia, as Wikipedia:Criticism 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 Ronald Reagan 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 Ronald Weitzer, 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 undue weight 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 Wikipedia biographical article. Iamcuriousblue 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 WP:BLP 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 iamcuriousblue 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 iamcuriousblue to create WP entries for the people he mentions. Their views deserve to be represented in Wikipedia. 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 iamcuriousblue'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. --Axiomatica 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 Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-06-25_Melissa_Farley 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.
Iamcuriousblue 19:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I have already posted on the Cabal page, so I am hardly ignoring it. --Axiomatica 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. --Axiomatica 19:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The term "sex work"

User Iamcuriousblue 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 Iamcuriousblue 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. --Axiomatica 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. Iamcuriousblue 19:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Iamcuriousblue'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. --Axiomatica 07:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


Why don't you ask for a third opinion? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 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. Iamcuriousblue 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 WP:NOR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 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. Iamcuriousblue 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? --Axiomatica 06:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, unless there a reference turns up stating that Farley is for sex work abolition. Iamcuriousblue 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. --Phyesalis (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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. User:Ninorc 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 (User:Iamcuriousblue) shortened this to:

"(most notably by sociologist Ronald Weitzer, a proponent of the full decriminalization of indoor prostitution)"

Now User:68.34.57.97, an editor who has made a number of edits to the articles Ronald Weitzer, Melissa Farley, and Prostitution in Nevada 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 User:68.34.57.97 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. Iamcuriousblue 02:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. Mgoodyear 03:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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.--Keepthestub 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. Iamcuriousblue 15:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

Axiomatica (talk) 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? Iamcuriousblue (talk) 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. Axiomatica (talk) 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. Axiomatica (talk)

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. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 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. Axiomatica (talk) 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, here and here, and in both cases you completely abandoned all Wikipedia 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. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 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 Wikipedia 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.Axiomatica (talk) 00:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


Is there a need for another mediation? Or the re-opening of one of the previous mediations? user:Btwoodward 09:33,, 13 April 2008 (EST)

I would like to re-open formal mediation with User:Axiomatica in good faith, however, anytime we have any kind of third-party mediation, this user simply leaves Wikipedia 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. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 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.Axiomatica (talk) 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. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

--Btwoodward (talk) 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 "radical feminist" is not even inherently a pejorative – there is a whole branch of feminism called "radical feminism" who's best-known exponents are Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon, and its this branch of feminism that Farley is part of. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 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.Axiomatica (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
First, I regard your reference to me as a "john" as a personal attack 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. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 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. Axiomatica (talk) 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. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 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 Wikipedia. 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.Axiomatica (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
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. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
As anyone with eyes can read above I am open to mediation. We had a successful mediation in September 07. I am open to new mediation. I cannot find any open mediation regarding this article and you refuse to provide pointers to any, so I assume your complaints about mediation are just another delay tactic to keep this biased entry up as long as possible and block all edits to it. Since you don't really seem serious about mediation, and have announced your intention to revert all my suggested edits with no discussion, I have opened an arbitration case on this article.Axiomatica (talk) 03:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
For godsake, Axiomatica, I think its you who needs eyes to see. Here is the record of the mediation in question, and as anybody can see, it was still active as of September 28th, and closed not because most issues were settled, but because you pulled one of your disappearing acts. I'll note that this totally sums up why I do not feel I can negotiate with you one on one. To put it bluntly YOU LIE. Bald face lie, even in the face of verifiable facts to the contrary. Do you have no shame? Iamcuriousblue (talk) 07:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The First Sentence

In an attempt to just get this article down to the facts, I have edited the first sentence to remove bias and add clarity.

Melissa Farley (born 1942) is an American feminist research and clinical psychologist and anti-pornography and anti-prostitution activist.[1][2][3][4] Farley is best known for her studies of the effects of prostitution, trafficking, and sexual violence.

to this:

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.[1][2][3][4]

Reasons:

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.

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.

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.

4. I added a ref to the end of the second sentence that describes Farley and gives an example of her work.

This first sentence is now a neutral description of the subject of the bio.:::: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Axiomatica (talk • contribs) 21:28, 18 April 2008

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.
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). Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2008 (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. Axiomatica (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The introductory summary at the beginning of the article is supposed to be a concise summary of the rest of the article, as per WP:INTRO. Since this is a short article, the intro consists of only two sentences. These two sentences describe Farley as a researcher and as an activist, descriptions that clearly make up the two major sections of the article. Since these descriptions are in dispute, the descriptions are heavily referenced. Since this is in question, I will outline what is taken from each reference:
  1. "Melissa Farley: Curriculum Vitae", 2004: Farley's own CV, in which she describes herself as a "clinical psychologist".
  2. "Slick S.F. posters advocate decriminalizing prostitution" by Kevin Foley, San Francisco Examiner, August 14, 1995: Description as a "clinical and research psychologist" – additional direct supporting material for language used in opening sentence.
  3. "Many Prostitutes Suffer Combat Disorder, Study Finds" by Abigail Zuger, New York Times, August 18, 1998: Reference added by Axiomatica, describes Farley as "a psychologist and researcher" – reference provides reinforcing support for language used in introduction, and is also useful as a reference for statements made later in the article.
  4. "Prostitution: The oldest use and abuse of women" by Melissa Farley, off our backs, May 1994. (FindArticles.com archive, p 3.): The biographical tag part of an article written by Farley herself for the radical feminist journal off our backs, in which Farley describes herself as "a fiminist (sp) psychologist and antipornography activist". This provides clear supporting documentation for Farley's description as an "anti-pornography activist", in addition to the referenced description of her activities from the 1980s to the 2000s in the article itself. BTW, this served as the basis of her earlier description as a "feminist research and clinical psychologist". Taking your earlier critique to heart, I have moved the term "feminist" to describe her activism rather than her research, though one could argue that there is a distinct school of the field of psychology called "feminist psychology".
  5. "Sober forum, street theater on prostitution ballot issue" by Patrick Hoge, San Francisco Chronicle, August 31, 2004: Farley described as "a San Francisco psychologist and anti-prostitution activist" – provides a clear reference to her description as an "anti-prostitution activist", a description which is further backed by referenced description of her views and activism vis a vis prostitution later in the article.
The description of "Melissa Farley is an American research and clinical psychologist and feminist anti-pornography and anti-prostitution activist" is one that is iron-clad and clearly referenced. I really don't think there's any basis for disputing it. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions for edits to this article by section

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 will note that both parties have agreed this section needs to be expanded. I will note that a strong section in this regard has yet to be written. What has been "whittled down"? To cases of cut-and-paste plagiarism, first on the part of User:Nikkicraft, the later on the part of Axiomatica, who simply cut and pated a series of abstracts of the above-mentioned articles by Farley. Yes, I reverted this, not because of objections about content per se, but because this was a total violation of Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Cutting and pasting content from another website is simply unacceptable on Wikipedia, and if Axiomatica isn't aware of this, they should be.
That said, this section should be expanded, and Axiomatica is welcome to do this. If this user doesn't want to, I'll be happy to. Or, if a third party wants to step in and do this. The only thing I ask is that an editor actually write a section summarizing Farley's research, rather than simply cut and paste it from another website or other source. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
How large of iamcuriousblue to welcome me to write more for this section. Given that you have reverted almost every word I have taken time to write, I have no reason to believe you would do otherwise this time.Axiomatica (talk) 23:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of her research 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.

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.

This is the first area where Axiomatica's strong bias shows through. The above represents one point of view about Farley and her research. There are opposing points of view – it is Wikipedia's job only to report that this controversy exists and what has been claimed by both sides. However, it seems that according to the above statement by Axiomatica, that given the case of a controversy aired in a peer-reviewed journal, it is the job of Wikipedia to decide that one researcher, in this case Farley, is more qualified and is the true "expert" and therefore stifle mention of this criticism based on the editors own views of who is more qualified. That this completely flies in the face of WP:NPOV and WP:CONTROVERSY should be completely obvious.
As for the argument over the length of this section, I have actually tried to keep in rather succinct. The problem of the length of the "criticism" part compared to summary of research is an issue of relative weight. I think it is clear what is at the root of this problem – the section summarizing Farley's research is too short, not that the "criticisms" part is too long.
I'll also add that I have not added all the criticisms of her work that I could have. This recent article in the Las Vegas Sun "Bewildered, academics pore over sex-trade hysteria"" gives yet another clear exposition of how many other prostitution researchers feel about the quality of Farley's research. I have not yet incorporated this (though I did add it to "External links"), not because I don't feel the article isn't highly relevant (it clearly is), but because I do not want to add yet more fuel to the fire while this article is being disputed and because, believe it or not, I am concerned about relative weight and thing priority should be given to expanding the section Farley's research. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
It is clear that you see this bio subject as important BECAUSE of the controversy she has created in pro-prostitution circles. Please be aware other parties, perhaps more neutral than yourself, see the bio subject as an expert on a difficult to research subject. At the very least, this article should accurately reflect the research and views of this bio subject. The reason it is so incomplete is because you keep reverting other people's entries. Please stop so we can move forward here.Axiomatica (talk) 23:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Activism and Views First of all activism and views are two separate things here. "Views" is a traditional bio header in Wikipedia 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.

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.

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.

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.

This is the other point at which Axiomatica shows their clear bias and speciousness of their argument. Its entirely clear that Farley's work mixes both activism and research, and this should be reported as part of the article. Mixing "activism" and "views" does not seem problematic to me, in any event, since activism, after all, is generally defined as the active advancement of a political view. Testimony before congress (reference please?) certainly falls under the heading of "activism" rather than research, to give but one example. The testimony she gave to the SF Planning Commission vis-a-vis Kink.com was pure activism and had nothing to do with anything she's done research on at all. As for the argument that "something she did 23 years ago" somehow not being relevant, I would simply point out that this is a biographical article, and its relevance is self-evident. Her testimony at the Kink.com is quite relevant, her participation in this event being newsworthy and widely covered in the local media.
The section on Melissa Farley vis a vis the sex worker's rights movement is particularly notable, has been going on for many years now, and is very important to mention. The section is actually relatively short compared to how long it could be based on the number of references available detailing this ongoing controversy. I have kept it short based on considerations of overall weight in the context of the article. If it needs clarification, I'd be happy to clarify this section further.
The claim that this section exists simply an excuse to link to things that I wish to promote is simply nonsense and represents more attack rhetoric from Axiomatica. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The fact that you cannot separate "activism" from "views" is part of the problem here. To help you undestand, a view would be something like "most women in prostitution want to leave it." Activism would be something like organizing a protest outside a strip club where there is prostitution. See the difference? Please also note that testifying before Congress is NOT activism, it is expert testimony. Are we to believe that everyone asked to testify in front of Congress is an activist? That is absurd.Axiomatica (talk) 23:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

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.

This section is too long and was tagged as such by a third-party. I am not disputing this. Much of this dates back to the large number of links originally contributed by User:Nikkicraft. I think these links do need to be paired down, however, I think this needs to be done in an equitable manner, which right now in the middle of an NPOV dispute would be rather difficult to accomplish. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes well, when you do a wholesale deletion of people's work, you are left with a mess like this.Axiomatica (talk) 23:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

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.Axiomatica (talk) 23:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

So long as there are only two editors involved, myself and Axiomatica, and Axiomatica continues to push for the article to be slanted toward their point of view, no, I don't expect resolution. (That this article needs involvement by several more parties is obvious, and something I have been asking for since I wrote the initial RfD.) For all of Axiomatica's protestations that I am a "biased editor", it is clear that Axiomatica is themself a highly biased editor in their own right, likely coming from a strong "prostitution abolitionist" point of view, and clearly wishing to promote Melissa Farley as an unchallenged "expert" on the issue. The user also seems to want to bury all mention of Melissa Farley's politics and activism, feeling, I guess, that this compromises the portrayal of Farley as a scholarly expert.
Axiomatica has gone on at length about my off-Wikipedia political activism (sometimes peppering this with rather nasty attacks on my perceived sexual proclivities). That I am open about my politics is nothing to be ashamed of – I only wish Axiomatica was more above-board about their own political views and biases, rather than continuing with this ongoing fiction that they are in some way an "unbiased" "neutral" editor. What I attempt to do that I don't think Axiomatica does is to put my politics aside enough to write a balanced article on the subject, giving both Farley's views and the views of her critics. Unfortunately, and this seems pretty clear based on the debate so far, is that Axiomatica will simply never be happy with this article until all mention of criticism of Farley is removed, along with all mention of her political activism. It is unfortunate that this user seems so strongly intent on biasing this article so strongly in favor of their own point of view.
I hope this serves as clear indication on the differences we have over this article. Other summaries of our differences can be found here and here. However, if experience is any guide, unfortunately this section will soon become buried in kilobytes of additional sections, giving reams of totally-repeated arguments, shifting goal posts, misstated Wikipedia policy, personal attacks against me, and victim posturing from Axiomatica. It seems obvious to me that Axiomatica is simply trying to "win" by sheer intimidation and attrition, simply requiring so much energy to argue this person's points that others drop away rather than face this onslaught. Axiomatica complains that other editors have dropped away, but perhaps Axiomatica should take a close look at how Axiomatica's own behavior has contributed to this situation. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The only "win" here would be that this article would reflect the facts around the subject of the bio rather than the personal pro-prostitution activism of iamcuriousblue. I have attempted to edit this entry to removed bias and add clarity for many months now, following all Wikipedia guildelines and you have refused to operate in good faith and have reverted not just my work, but the work of everyone else who has come in here to bring some balance to this situation. The record is perfectly clear. Axiomatica (talk) 23:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration case opened

An arbitration case has been filed involving the actions of iamcuriousblue and his abusive reversions of all edits to this article: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#iamcuriousblue Editors who were trying to edit this article but were frustrated in their efforts are welcome to go to the arbitration page and enter their statements (if you're still around.) Axiomatica (talk) 03:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Bring it on! I have been wanting to engage in third-party negotiations with you for the last year, which you have so far avoided. It was actually my intention to open up an arbitration case over your behavior, actually. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 07:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I did not see any discussion on this under Arbitration, but as a researcher on prostitution I am familiar with Farley's role in the public policy debates, and could provide some insight. Which having said, articles about living people generate a lot of problems, not the least of which is separating the person from their opinions, which have to be respected whether one disagrees with them or not. However Farley is one of the most controversial figures in this field of research, and it has been difficult to validate her claims, while at the same time serious questions have been raised about her methods. It goes without saying that the field itself is controversial enough, without the injection of extreme views. I should add that several people have contacted me about this article, possibly because I have criticised Farley's work in a number of places, and therefore may not be considered neutral. Mgoodyear (talk) 00:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The arbitration case is closed now – they decided not to take the case and have recommended that simply more people get involved with editing the article. For my part, I've been wanting to get other people involved in editing this article since I issued an RfD over a year ago, but unfortunately there haven't been many takers. The fact that myself and Axiomatica are the only two editors that have been consistently interested in this article, and we can't agree on anything, hence, the stasis this article has been in over the past year.
I will say, Mgoodyear, that even though you, like me, are somebody who might not be considered "neutral" in the overall debate around Farley (and since when has it ever been the case that any editors personal views are "neutral"?), it is still worth pointing out that Farley is a controversial figure. The point then, it seems to me, is to give Farley's work a fair and impartial exposition, and give the controversy around it a fair and impartial exposition as well. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 07:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
For the record, here is the decision of the arbitration committee. Axiomatica (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/0/0)
  • Reject. Please get more editors involved; the two of you have been basically wrestling with each other for a long time over something that should be easy enough to work out, given our NPOV and NOR policies; but I see very little participation from anyone but you two on the talk page. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Reject as premature. Agree with jpgordon that this situation will most likely be resolved without ArbCom if more users get involved. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Reject. I do not see in this dispute the sort of long, drawn out and involved conflict between editors which makes it suitable for arbitration. As Jpgordon invites, please get other editors to help broker an agreement. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline at this time. I agree with the other arbitrators' comments above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline. I strongly advise these editors to pursue and follow through on third-party mediation. Paul August ☎ 15:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of their intention, the effect of this decision by the Arbitration Committee is to leave iamcuriousblue free to continue his abusive policy of reverting every edit he disagrees with. This makes it very unlikely that more editors will come along. Why would anyone take the time to write up factual information for this entry when there is a clear history of iamcurious blue simply reverting everything added by anyone other than himself. The hope that this article can be improved to the point of acceptability fades even more with this arbitration decision. I find the comment by Sam Blacketer that this dispute has not been long enough and drawn out enough to border on the absurd. User iamcuriousblue aka Peter G. Werner has been asserting his unwarranted ownership of this article since July of 2006. For almost 2 years, there has been biased and misleading and inaccurate information on this entry and iamcuriousblue has defeated every attempt to clean it up. Instead he uses it to link to articles by his friends and fellow prostitution advocates. This decision by the Arbitration Committee makes it clear that Wikipedia's process for dealing with abusive editors is broken. Axiomatica (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Axiomatica, if there is one thing that's clear from your ongoing attack rhetoric, it is YOU who are the abusive editor and it is YOU who deletes material based on disagreement with your personal POV. I suggest you either make positive contributions to this article or back off. Deleting my contributions in order to push your own POV is unacceptable and I will continue to revert such deletions if you continue to carry them out. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion tag

The content of the article related to the subject's personal life is seemingly nonexistent. Some such information clearly exists, given the content of the infobox, and should be added. John Carter (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's just in the nature of what's been published about Farley biographically, as well as clear rules about WP:VERIFY. To my knowledge, no biographical/personal info about Farley has ever been published, other than her birth year, the universities she graduated from, and institutions she's worked with, but there is a lot of material about her activism and her research. Since Farley is notable for both of these things, it follows that that should be the emphasis of the article. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Review please

The essence of the disagreement here seems to be about the nature and details of the subject's work, and the amount of emphasis to give criticism of the subject's work. Is that about right? John Carter (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The nature and details of the subject's work, yes, and whether the subject's activism should be described at all, or only the subject's activities and findings as a researcher. The amount of emphasis on criticism, and it seems, whether such criticisms should be included at all, since reading over "Suggestions for edits to this article by section", every single criticism of the subjects work that has been mentioned in the article has had its inclusion challenged.
There does seem to be one point of agreement, I think, and that's that the description of the subject's research, as gleaned from the subjects published research articles, should be expanded. I am a very busy student, but hope to find the time to write up something like this in the next several weeks, if nobody else does it first. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
In a biographical article, which this is, I can't imagine that her activism shouldn't be discussed. In fact, the material on her books, as such, could possibly be more easily split into articles on those books, if their WP:NOTABILITY can be established. And there is very often a "controversy" or similar section when a given subject has been involved in a significant way in a controversy, which seems to be fairly clearly the case here. See John Byrne (the first one that came to mind, for some reason) and several others for such "controversy" sections elsewhere. John Carter (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The idea of putting all the material on controversy in a controversy section is a point Axiomatica and I have also disputed over. Please have a look at WP:CRITICISM – while this essay is not official WP policy, it makes a case that putting views of critics in a specific criticism section is not a Wikipedia best practice. First, it acts as a troll magnate, and second it isolates different criticisms from the larger context of the specific aspect of that persons work that was criticized. I think it makes more sense that criticism of Farley's research be kept in the section that describes her research and criticism of her views be kept in that section.
As for articles on her books, first, she's written only one book, and published a second anthology volume. Most of her publication is in the form of research and opinion articles. I don't think a good case could be made that any of these articles or books have notability independent of Farley and hence merit their own article. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with John Carter that there should be a separate Criticism or Controversy section. After all, this is a biographical entry about one person, not an entry about their critics. Unfortunately every time anyone has consolidated the criticism into a Criticism section, iamcuriousblue has reverted it.Axiomatica (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest in this article, John Carter. The essence of the disagreement at this point is that no one is allowed to make an edit here without iamcuriousblue reverting it. Multiple people have spent many hours and words arguing that an text should be added or deleted, only to find that iamcuriousblue deletes their work, usually without explanation. The record goes back to 2006. There is inaccurate and biased information in this entry that needs to be deleted and there is additional information that needs to be added. See the section here called "Suggestions for edits to this article by section" for the basic beginnings of what needs to be done. We are currently stalled because iamcuriousblue will not allow edits. In all my time at Wikipedia I have never run into an editor with such an intense case of unwarranted article ownership.Axiomatica (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I am really requesting the specific details regarding the text that are in question, not the conduct of any other editors. What specific kinds of changes to the content of the article have been reverted? Were they additions to the biographical content, material from or about the subject's works, material from or about the subject's works from parties other than the subject, opinions of the subject or her works from others, etc.? Why were they reverted? If for lack of sourcing or poor sourcing or POV, on what basis were those claims made? Would there be alternate ways of phrasing those additions? In short, while I can understand how a person would get frustrated enough to basically say "he did it", it doesn't really supply enough information about the matter to provide any sort of basis for how to improve the article in a way that all parties can agree to. And, in all honesty, I tend to think that in general it helps all involved to have a clear idea of what the points of contention are if they are stated again. John Carter (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I know that this will come across as outright uncivil, but there is just no other way of describing Axiomatica's words – Axiomatica is straight up LYING, making up a version of events in order to make me look like I'm blocking other people's edits. This is manifestly not the case. Axiomatica's main contributions so far have been to revert my contributions to the article. My reversion of Axiomatica's "contributions" have been simply to revert back in my contributions. I have made a pretty clear case why the material in dispute should be included and why this material is necessary for an article that's remotely NPOV. Axiomatica has not made any convincing counter argument, and at this point is simply resorting to an outright smear campaign against me. I can't see any effective progress in negotiating the shape of this article as long as this editor continues to simply attack and outright lie. I will also note that I consider these attacks and lies to be a rather extreme violation of WP:CIVIL and if it continues, I will take this back to arbitration, this time asking for sanctions based on Axiomatica's behavior toward me.
It is also manifestly untrue that I am reverting everybody else's edits. Please note that recent contributions by yourself, Enviroboy, and Btwoodward have been included and were not challenged by me. Nor have I reverted any of Axiomatica's recent additions – the only edits I have reverted were her reverts of my work.
My plan right now is to continue contributing additional material. My emphasis right now is contributing summaries of Farley's research and views directly summarized from Farley's own research papers and published articles, something (I think) we can agree needs more emphasis in this article. I have no problem if Axiomatica wants to make positive contributions to this article, but if this editor is going to continue to revert my contributions simply to push their own point of view, I will not hesitate to revert those deletions. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 11:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I really ask that you pull back on the incivility on this Talk page, iamcuriousblue. It is not helping us get to a good neutral entry. The history is here for anyone to read. As I recall I've only reverted a couple of times in the history of this page. I edit. Which is what I suggest you do. When I edit, I try to remember to post here about why I am editing. As a general rule you disagree and revert my edits sometimes with explanation, sometimes without. If I were a child, I would just revert them back and we could engage in revert wars all day. Instead I come onto the talk page and make the case. As in the "Sex Work" debate of September 07, you do not relent on what should be a simple and obvious point until other people show up here. The end result is that biased and inaccurate information remains in this entry. Axiomatica (talk) 19:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I think this process could be a great deal more civil, but unfortunately, your actions and words are and continue to be entirely uncivil. And I will point out again that your words are a massive distortion of the facts of the matter, and I consider these ongoing distortions to be hugely uncivil as well. Basically, it is you who are trying to delete a great deal of material I have contributed, not I who am trying to delete your contributions. I consider that to be essentially "reverting", not editing. So far, you've contributed very little, in fact. So who is trying to "revert" whom?
You claim that there is biased and inaccurate information in this article, I think I've argued quite clearly that that the information included in the article is accurate and well referenced and that inclusion of this material is absolutely necessary to make sure this article is properly balanced according to Wikipedia's very clear rules on WP:NPOV and WP:CONTROVERSY. You have not made any kind of effective counter-argument, but simply claim that the argument is biased an inaccurate, because....well, because you say so. You continue to raise hue and cry about me supposedly not letting you edit when so far all your edits have consisting of dumping material that happens not to agree with your point of view and agenda vis a vis Melissa Farley – I think the edits you've called for are going to make this article quite biased and more than a little bit inaccurate, and I'm not going to let it happen. Basically, I have nothing to say to you unless you are willing to negotiate about the shape of this article in good faith, following clear Wikipedia rules and guidelines, and in the presence of third parties.
In the meantime, the information on criticisms of Farley's research stays, the information on her activist history stays, and that's that. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
John Carter – sorry if I digressed from the information you wanted in what I just wrote above, but I am frustrated by the ongoing rhetoric being used against me. Anyway, as for the specifics of what is in dispute, please read over "Suggestions for edits to this article by section" and "Which sections are in dispute" above, which should make what material is under dispute pretty clear. Most of the material in question is material that has been contributed by me and that Axiomatica wants deleted. (When Axiomatica states that I have been reverting their edits, I was reverting Axiomatica's deletion of my contributions.) Your opinion on the sections in question and what, if any, modifications or deletions need to be made would be valuable. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 12:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bias and inacuracies

I see a considerable amount of material has been added recently. Some of it is material that was here in an earlier incarnation. There is significant material here that is biased and inaccurate. Here is a small sampling.

1. Farley is a researcher not an activist. iamcuriousblue argues that testifying in front of a city commission and Congress make her an anti-prostitution activist. This is obviously ridiculous, I have edited this out and he has reverted my edits every time.

2. Farley is the author of over 25 peer-reviewed articles and numerous other studies. iamcurious blue has edited this to say "several studies." Why lose the facts like that? Because he doesn't want people to know the extent of her body of work.

3. The "Criticism" section needs rewriting. One of the examples of criticism of her studies is "they have been generally applied to demonstrate the harm of sex work of all kinds." That is not a criticism of a study, it is a criticism of how the study is used. His other criticism about the sample population is just wrong and dealt with at length by Farley in an article in the external links section, (which is not linked to) Strangely the innacurate criticism remains.

4. As far as the sentence that her findings largely reflect her radical feminist ideology, there are two problems - 1. Does she claim somewhere in a source to BE a radical feminist? And 2. even if she were to be a radical feminist, how is that a criticism of a study? A study is a study, whether it's done by a feminist, a baptist, or a bicyclist. This is a simple case of guilt by association dressed up as research criticism.

5. As was determined by Moderation in September 2007, you cannot say that Farley feels x or y about "sex workers" because she does not use the term. It is an unscientific term. Additionally, you propose that Farley is "opposed" to people and groups. Farley actually works with sex workers quite often so this is patently untrue. Then iamcuriousblue goes on to generalize about what activists think about Farley which goes in an article on sex workers, not in this bio article.

6. There is no basis for the label anti-porn activist. She may be one, but we have no proof here. You have evidence she WAS one 23 years ago. Again there is an attempt at guilt by association with this Nikki Craft. As iamcurious' claim that testifying at a government hearing makes you activist, I believe most people would disagree.

7. There is more.

These may seem like nuanced points. But Farley is frequently called to testify before legislative panels and government bodies around the world and frequently speaks to the press. Details and words matter when drafting legislation and covering the news. A biased and inaccurate entry like this in Wikipedia not only damages the reputation of scientist and writer, it makes Wikipedia look bad.

The bias in this article is an attempt to denigrate Farley's work, while attempting to just fit inside Wikipedia's technical guidelines. A quick Google search will show that the editor, iamcuriousblue is part of an online smear campaign by sex workers and pimps and others who hate Farley's work and the fact that it is taken seriously in scientific and legislative circles.

There seems to be no way to fix this entry.

  • iamcuriousblue has stated intention to continue to reverse my edits. Unless he is blocked, this is effectively his entry.
  • Moderation is ineffective in a case like this. Moderation managed to solve 1 of 20 issues - the "sex work" question - back in September 2007, but moderators get bored and left after that one issues was solved. And now the term "sex work" is back.
  • The Arbitration committee declined the case.

Either iamcuriousblue needs to be blocked from editing this article or it should be deleted. As it stands it is grossly inaccurate and biased against the subject. This is a biography of a living person and as such demands much closer attention Neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research, all of which are violated here. Axiomatica (talk) 01:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll point out that I have responded to practically all of these points previously in the following sections: "Suggestions for edits to this article by section" and "Which sections are in dispute". I'll also point out that what has been posted above is quite typical of the editor's previous actions in that whenever this person cannot offer an effective counter-argument, this editor simply goes back to square one and repeats the same arguments over again, burying previous arguments where this person's points have effectively been answered. I leave it to third parties to read both sides of the argument and judge who is really making an attempt to compromise the neutrality and accuracy of this article.
One more point – yes "a considerable amount of material" has been added over the last several weeks, most of it my contribution. If one bothers to see what has actually been added, it is in fact mainly summaries of Farley's research articles largely based on the article abstracts from Farley's own papers. But this too, I suppose, is part of the "online smear campaign by sex workers and pimps and others who hate Farley's work". Iamcuriousblue (talk) 01:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Adding a lot of material is not the same as adding unbiased, neutral pov material. A cursory glance at the content might even pass muster with casual editors. But the bias of the material is real and is enumerated above.Axiomatica (talk) 03:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I tried editing the first sentence once more this evening and iamcuriousblue once again reverted the edit. I will repeat my request that iamcuriousblue be blocked from editing this article so that others can participate in the process. Axiomatica (talk) 07:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] And now, outright vandalism.....

I'll note that now the article has been blanked and replaced with "This article has been deleted at the request of the subject of the biography."

This, of course, constitutes vandalism under Wikipedia guidelines and I'm reporting it as such. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 02:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The previous action now establishes that User:Axiomatica is in communication with the subject of the article, and has even gone so far as to blank the entire page (clear vandalism) at the request of the article subject. I think this should do away once and for all User:Axiomatica's contention that they are some sort of "neutral" third party. Of course, as in my case, it is perfectly possible for a critic or supporter of a subject to make valid contributions to an article. It is a matter of keeping one's own views in check and be fair to both sides of a controversy, something I have attempted to do, but sadly, I do not see the other editor even attempting. I am still willing to take part in third-party mediation with User:Axiomatica, but actions like this recent vandalism are a prime example of why I think the time for one-to-one negotiations with this person are long past. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 03:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Blanking a page at the request of the subject of a biography of a living person WP:BLP is hardly vandalism. It is an extreme reaction to the fact that all of Wikipedia's processes of moderation and arbitration cannot stop a zealot like yourself when they are determined to bias a biography entry. Axiomatica (talk) 03:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
It would be if it could not be verified as such. If the subject of the article truly wishes to have the article blanked, then I would recommend that she contact WP:OTRS, verify that she is the subject of the article, and request its deletion/blanking there. Otherwise, we would only have your word that the request was made, which would qualify as removal of content on the basis of original research, and that may very well cross the line of vandalism. If, as seems to be the case, you are in contact with the subject, please inform her to read the page I linked to above and follow the procedures outlined there. Personally, I think any other matters should wait until and unless we hear anything on that front, or until it becomes clear that no such e-mail is likely to be sent. I'd take a guess that two weeks would be sufficient for her to contact OTRS and request the deletion. John Carter (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Since when can the subject of an article simply demand the deletion of an article simply because the subject happens not to like what is said in the article? Everything I've ever read about WP:BLP and WP:AUTOBIO specifically states that the subject of the article has no right to dictate the contents of that article, or otherwise slant it to their own POV. At best, they have the right to remove clear inaccuracies or compromising and irrelevant personal information. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for third opinion

Basically, there is a very intense and long-term dispute over WP:NPOV and WP:BLP issues concerning this article, between myself and User:Axiomatica. (And going back further, between, on one side, myself and User:CyntWorkStuff, and on the other, User:Nikkicraft, over many of the same issues.) Each of us feel that the shape of the article called for by the other editor is extremely non-NPOV, and each of us has doubts about the intentions of the other party. Prior RfCs and other calls for other editors to get involved in editing this article have not been very productive, however, as the vehemence of this dispute and the sheer depth of archived discussion has proven intimidating to other editors. What is needed is an editor who is willing to go over the history of the debate and render some judgments as to the content issues at hand.

There are several good summaries of what issues are in dispute: "Suggestions for edits to this article by section", "Which sections are in dispute", and "The First Sentence". Nevertheless, I would prefer that an editor rendering a third opinion take the time to read over the past debate and see how this conflict has developed.

My summary of where I stand (and I'm sure the other party will give their point of view):

I hold that the article in its present state is factually accurate, NPOV or close to NPOV (though I will leave this for third parties to judge), well referenced, and up to the high standards demanded by WP:BLP. This article includes the perspectives of individuals and groups who are critical of Farley and her research, and in this regard, this article is entirely in keeping with biographies of other individuals who have made controversial research claims or have been known for controversial political stands, such as Peter Duesberg, Bjørn Lomborg, and Andrea Dworkin. I acknowledge that there have been possible problems with undue weight in the balance between exposition of the views of the subject of this article versus those of her critics, but I have recently begun to address this issue by expanding the section on Farley's research, adding some detailed discussion of this research, summarized directly from her own published work. If there is a genuine problem with balance, I welcome having this pointed out, along with suggestions as to whatever further action needs to be taken to bring the article up to Wikipedia's best standards. I would at some point like to see the "neutrality and factual accuracy" tags removed, but I leave that to the judgment of third parties.
I have some very strong concerns over the editing demands and behavior of the other party in this dispute, User:Axiomatica. Basically, I hold that this editor is calling for an article that is extremely biased toward a favorable view of Farley and her research, and is demanding wholesale removal of the reporting of any perspective at all critical of Farley. The editor is also demanding that all mention of Farley's history of feminist political activism be removed, for apparently no clear reason whatsoever, other than the fact that reporting of this aspect of Farley's work is contrary to the spin that this editor wishes the article to have. The fact that this editor now admits that they are in contact with Melissa Farley herself, and even has gone so far as to engage in page blanking vandalism at the subject's behest, is something that needs to be taken into account here. Axiomatica continues to frame the issues at hand in a way that is, in my view, extremely dishonest and inaccurate, basically claiming that any inclusion of perspectives critical of Farley, however balanced, constitute unacceptable bias against the subject of the article. The editor also continues to insist that the editor's own point of view is in some way "neutral", and may even honestly believe this.
I welcome one or more third parties who can take in the issues at hand, render valid opinions based on the clearly stated policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, and hopefully bring this dispute to a conclusion.

Iamcuriousblue (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Because this dispute has been ongoing for more than six months, because the language in the debate has been uncivil at times, because the case has already been accepted once by the Mediation Committee, and because the subject herself has requested that content be blanked, I think this is beyond the WP:3O stage. According to the notes above, if I read them correctly, the Arbitration Committee itself has suggested mediation.
I respectfully request that both editors actively involved in the dispute, as well as any others who have a strong opinion on the matter, resubmit this matter for formal mediation. I think that Dr. Farley herself should be invited to participate in the mediation; however, if she wishes for the article to be removed (for POV, privacy or other reasons), that should be taken into due consideration. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The AfD rules do not provide that the subject of can demand deletion, although the subject's opinions are to be taken into account as to possible WP:BLP violations. I have to say, though, that I see little doubt that the subject is a notable anti-pornographer, regardless of any studies she may have authored. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, my question is, what if Axiomatica continues to avoid the mediation process entirely? That is, by just simply no-showing and waiting out the entire active mediation period, then coming back with the same "square one" list of complaints when the process has expired, as has been this user's history so far. Does this go on forever? Or at some point, can arbitration committee be asked to step in and demand that this user either engage in the mediation process in good faith or cease editing this article?
My concern about inviting Farley to become involved in the mediation process is that this will be taken as an invitation to write her own article or to dictate the shape of it to her liking, something clearly prohibited under WP:AUTOBIO.
I'm kind of disappointed that the WP:3O is being dropped – one of the steps arbitration committee recommended for resolving this dispute was simply to involve more editors in this article, something I think is a very good idea. Submitting the article to WP:3O was a step in that direction, and now this seems to be refused as well. I'll note that the dispute resolution process is working very poorly in this matter – in practice, it seems to be that if two editors have a strong disagreement, just isolate the two and have them "work it out" – it doesn't seem to matter even if one of the editors is flagrantly violating Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, or at least proceeding with a very poor understanding of them. I can assure you, leaving myself and Axiomatica to work this out on our own has a proven track record of not working. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
If Axiomatica avoids the mediation process, and he's deemed a "necessary party", then the mediation doesn't proceed. The next step would be an article content RfC, although, if there are BLP concerns (which I don't see), then the BLP noticeboard would be an appropriate place. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll proceed as follows: I'll invite Axiomatica to, once again, re-open the Mediation Committee case, and open the invitation to Farley herself, and any other party that might be interested in mediation. However, if Axiomatica either a) does not respond within, say 60 days, or b) refuses the mediation, or c) simply drops out of the mediation, and the case expires – then I'll consider Axiomatica no longer a "necessary party" and proceed to immediately vet the article through the following process: 1) article content RfC, 2) submit it to BLP noticeboard, and 3) submit it to NPOV noticeboard. If Axiomatica refuses to go to Mediation Committee with this, but continues this edit war, I'm going to take it back to Arbitration Committee – there is no valid reason for Axiomatica not to engage in mediation over this dispute. However, during the intervening period of time, I may continue to add material, as well as continue to contest Axiomatica's deletions of the contributions I have made. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


I think this is an excellent case for WP:MEDIATION. In order to ensure an outcome that is fair to the subject of the article, I again urge somebody to invite her to participate in mediation, even if as an observer or as an anon. IP. Please agree to mediation. Thank you. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 04:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that, despite the claims that Dr. Farley has requested the page be blanked, there has apparently been no evidence to support that fact, despite the fact that the person making that claim was told how to substantiate it. On that basis, I have to assume that the claim was either invalid or one which the subject has, for whatever reason, not chosen to follow up on. Therefore, there basically is no reason to assume that there should be any reservations about including any information in this article that would meet standard BLP guidelines. If, of course, that situation changes in the future, then things here would change as well. John Carter (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu -