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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
You appear to think Farleys work is beyond criticism / review or that all who do so are misgynist or doing so for political reasons. There is volumes of material from prominent academics which criticize her research methods, sampling, conclusions etc. For example, 15 academics wrote a very strongly worded critique of her study on Scottish Johns and she is regularly accused of skewing her research to guarantee the findings required by those who've paid for it. Given this context, if you wish to include any content about her work then NPOV demands pertinent criticism be included. In terms of Farley representing current feminist theory, it is wholly unfair to suggest that ALL feminists share an abolitionist, 'sex-negative' stance - third wave/evolved feminists are in fact some of her biggest critics.
Catherinebrown (
talk)
21:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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):
Iamcuriousblue ( talk) 18:46, 8 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)
I really don't want to get into a revert war over something as petty as the phrase "research psychologist", but I've been finding Arthur Rubin's reasoning for removing this phrase more than a tad frustrating. I noted the sources for this statement, yet this editor (and another editor who has jumped into the fray for rather suspect reasons) keep reverting the statement as "not sourced". What this says is that this editor is not even bothering to read my explanations for using this phrase before taking out my edit. I shouldn't have to repeat myself, but I'm reposting the reasons I've given previously for the statement given in the opening sentence:
I'm just giving a summary of the description of this individual from established, published sources, which is my understanding of how Wikipedia is supposed to work.
Mr Rubin, I'm not married to the term "research psychologist" in this article, but I'm more than a little frustrated that you seem to be reverting me for reasons that are in error and don't seem to even bother to read my explanations as to why your description as "unsourced" is in error. Please have the decency to explain your reasoning here, rather than just doing blind reverts. Thank you. Iamcuriousblue ( talk) 22:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I just reverted an edit that removed the following paragraph from this article:
The edit summary says "removed reference to farleys conclusion as much is an unsubstantiated claims and highly contentious". (I have not altered Catherinebrown's other addition, which outlines some further opinions critical of Farley.)
This paragraph in question is actually an almost verbatim summary of one of Farley's most widely-quoted publications and hence is an important part of this article. Yes, the claims that Farley makes are highly contentious, and if you check the Talk page history, you'll note that I have had to argue that point vehemently vis a vis an editor who didn't think that discussion of views critical of Farley had any legitimacy whatsoever.
Nonetheless, please pay attention to WP:NPOV, WP:CONTROVERSY, and WP:NOR. It is not the role of a Wikipedia article to decide which side of a debate is the correct one, only to report what each side has said. Please note that the above sentence is not meant as an advocacy of Farley's views or as a stamp of approval on her conclusions. The statement reads: "Farley and the coauthors of this paper state that their findings contradict what they refer to as "myths" about prostitution". In a latter section, the article discusses the views of critics who hold that those conclusions are not legitimate.
Once again, it needs to emphasized – Melissa Farley is an extremely controversial and polarizing figure, but Wikipedia rules demand that this article can neither champion her views against all comers, nor be all about bashing her. Putting aside one's views and maintaining this balance may be difficult, I realize, but nonetheless crucial for putting together an article like this. Iamcuriousblue ( talk) 02:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
You make a very good point. Numerous academics have criticised Farleys work in that she presents her findings and then draws inferences from these which are completely unjustified by her own evidence. For example, her assertion that prostitution with gay men is the same as with women is wholly unsupported by her own evidence or other studies. In that instance, she was accused of a kind of "feminist imperialism" in that she interpreted her (scant) evidence through a gender feminist filter which bore little relation to the lived experience of most gay men. Obviously, selectively analysing her findings through this distorted filter is a recurrent criticism. I agree we should restore the summary of her findings and I will (when I get chance to find sources) add a suffix which reflects the above. Catherinebrown ( talk) 20:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
This article was under serious dispute several months ago. Are there remaining WP:NPOV or WP:BLP issues with this article or can the tags on the article be removed?
Its now been well over 2 months since I asked
User:Axiomatica to take their issues with this article
back to Mediation Committee and close to 3 months since this user has been active on Wikipedia. At this point, I no longer consider this editor an active participant on this article or on Wikipedia.
I would therefore like to move forward with further work on this article, especially settling any remaining neutrality, factual accuracy issues, or BLP issues with this article. It is my position that this article meets the criteria of WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and WP:VERIFY, but I am refraining from removing the NPOV and "Factual Accuracy" tags until I get other opinions. The dispute in question has been rather long and verbose, though the sections " Which sections are in dispute", " Suggestions for edits to this article by section", and " The First Sentence" summarize most of what specific content was under dispute.
I would like to settle once and for all whether there really are any WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:VERIFY, or other issues, settle them and remove the dispute tags from the article. I also plan on running this article by the NPOV and BLP noticeboards after the RfC process to make sure everything is in order.
What I think needs to be done to further improve this article:
1) Mainly expansion – incorporate information found under "External links", which right now is overly long, but has quite a bit of material that is useful as a source of further material for this article.
2) After incorporating in external links, pare down superfluous ones from the list.
3) Specifically, expand the section on "Other research", which is essentially just a placeholder right now. The "Studies of men who buy sex" section could use some further detail – unfortunately, the studies in question are not found in academic journals and lack a summary or abstract, so distilling the information found in the article is a bit of a challenge. If there are further prostitution studies not covered under "Studies of prostitution", those should be covered as well.
4) There are further verifiable published criticisms of Farley's studies and views that I have not included due to the article having been actively under dispute. These should be added to the article, within the bounds of Wikipedia's policies on balance and undue weight. Iamcuriousblue ( talk) 23:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I removed the most recent edit by User:Catherinebrown:
None of these citations are listed anywhere among the references, so its hard to tell where they are from, but I'm pretty sure none of these are specific critiques of Melissa Farley's assertions or research. Hence, even though the above clearly cites several sources for the statement, it is being applied here in a novel way, in violation of Wikipedia's rules about original synthesis, a subset of original research.
Now if this research is being used by a verifiable, citable source (according to Wikipedia's rules) to specifically contest Farley's assertions, then by all means, that belongs here, specifically citing that source as the primary one. Iamcuriousblue ( talk) 04:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the "POV" and "factual accuracy" tags for this article. The content of this article has not been in dispute for 6 months now, and an RfC and an NPOV noticeboard notice have been run to ask if anybody has any remaining objections to the article. Since there haven't been any objections (other than a call for more biographical content), and, I think, balanced and accurately reflecting published sources, I'm removing these dispute tags.
I will vet this article further at the WP:BLP noticeboard shortly. Iamcuriousblue ( talk) 15:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
--Obviously this article is still in dispute and has POV problems. The author, iamcuriousblue, is completely biased against the subject. This article has been under dispute for years now and will remain so as long as no other persons are allowed to edit the article except Mr. iamcuriousblue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.249.50 ( talk) 08:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Presumably, this finally represents the termination of this long, ugly dispute: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Axiomatica/Archive. – Iamcuriousblue ( talk) 05:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I know it's not very polite, but I've gone ahead and removed the Expand template since the article seems to be pretty well fleshed out. Feel free to re-add the template, but please discuss the reasoning here. 98.71.197.85 ( talk) 16:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
You appear to think Farleys work is beyond criticism / review or that all who do so are misgynist or doing so for political reasons. There is volumes of material from prominent academics which criticize her research methods, sampling, conclusions etc. For example, 15 academics wrote a very strongly worded critique of her study on Scottish Johns and she is regularly accused of skewing her research to guarantee the findings required by those who've paid for it. Given this context, if you wish to include any content about her work then NPOV demands pertinent criticism be included. In terms of Farley representing current feminist theory, it is wholly unfair to suggest that ALL feminists share an abolitionist, 'sex-negative' stance - third wave/evolved feminists are in fact some of her biggest critics.
Catherinebrown (
talk)
21:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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):
Iamcuriousblue ( talk) 18:46, 8 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)
I really don't want to get into a revert war over something as petty as the phrase "research psychologist", but I've been finding Arthur Rubin's reasoning for removing this phrase more than a tad frustrating. I noted the sources for this statement, yet this editor (and another editor who has jumped into the fray for rather suspect reasons) keep reverting the statement as "not sourced". What this says is that this editor is not even bothering to read my explanations for using this phrase before taking out my edit. I shouldn't have to repeat myself, but I'm reposting the reasons I've given previously for the statement given in the opening sentence:
I'm just giving a summary of the description of this individual from established, published sources, which is my understanding of how Wikipedia is supposed to work.
Mr Rubin, I'm not married to the term "research psychologist" in this article, but I'm more than a little frustrated that you seem to be reverting me for reasons that are in error and don't seem to even bother to read my explanations as to why your description as "unsourced" is in error. Please have the decency to explain your reasoning here, rather than just doing blind reverts. Thank you. Iamcuriousblue ( talk) 22:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I just reverted an edit that removed the following paragraph from this article:
The edit summary says "removed reference to farleys conclusion as much is an unsubstantiated claims and highly contentious". (I have not altered Catherinebrown's other addition, which outlines some further opinions critical of Farley.)
This paragraph in question is actually an almost verbatim summary of one of Farley's most widely-quoted publications and hence is an important part of this article. Yes, the claims that Farley makes are highly contentious, and if you check the Talk page history, you'll note that I have had to argue that point vehemently vis a vis an editor who didn't think that discussion of views critical of Farley had any legitimacy whatsoever.
Nonetheless, please pay attention to WP:NPOV, WP:CONTROVERSY, and WP:NOR. It is not the role of a Wikipedia article to decide which side of a debate is the correct one, only to report what each side has said. Please note that the above sentence is not meant as an advocacy of Farley's views or as a stamp of approval on her conclusions. The statement reads: "Farley and the coauthors of this paper state that their findings contradict what they refer to as "myths" about prostitution". In a latter section, the article discusses the views of critics who hold that those conclusions are not legitimate.
Once again, it needs to emphasized – Melissa Farley is an extremely controversial and polarizing figure, but Wikipedia rules demand that this article can neither champion her views against all comers, nor be all about bashing her. Putting aside one's views and maintaining this balance may be difficult, I realize, but nonetheless crucial for putting together an article like this. Iamcuriousblue ( talk) 02:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
You make a very good point. Numerous academics have criticised Farleys work in that she presents her findings and then draws inferences from these which are completely unjustified by her own evidence. For example, her assertion that prostitution with gay men is the same as with women is wholly unsupported by her own evidence or other studies. In that instance, she was accused of a kind of "feminist imperialism" in that she interpreted her (scant) evidence through a gender feminist filter which bore little relation to the lived experience of most gay men. Obviously, selectively analysing her findings through this distorted filter is a recurrent criticism. I agree we should restore the summary of her findings and I will (when I get chance to find sources) add a suffix which reflects the above. Catherinebrown ( talk) 20:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
This article was under serious dispute several months ago. Are there remaining WP:NPOV or WP:BLP issues with this article or can the tags on the article be removed?
Its now been well over 2 months since I asked
User:Axiomatica to take their issues with this article
back to Mediation Committee and close to 3 months since this user has been active on Wikipedia. At this point, I no longer consider this editor an active participant on this article or on Wikipedia.
I would therefore like to move forward with further work on this article, especially settling any remaining neutrality, factual accuracy issues, or BLP issues with this article. It is my position that this article meets the criteria of WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and WP:VERIFY, but I am refraining from removing the NPOV and "Factual Accuracy" tags until I get other opinions. The dispute in question has been rather long and verbose, though the sections " Which sections are in dispute", " Suggestions for edits to this article by section", and " The First Sentence" summarize most of what specific content was under dispute.
I would like to settle once and for all whether there really are any WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:VERIFY, or other issues, settle them and remove the dispute tags from the article. I also plan on running this article by the NPOV and BLP noticeboards after the RfC process to make sure everything is in order.
What I think needs to be done to further improve this article:
1) Mainly expansion – incorporate information found under "External links", which right now is overly long, but has quite a bit of material that is useful as a source of further material for this article.
2) After incorporating in external links, pare down superfluous ones from the list.
3) Specifically, expand the section on "Other research", which is essentially just a placeholder right now. The "Studies of men who buy sex" section could use some further detail – unfortunately, the studies in question are not found in academic journals and lack a summary or abstract, so distilling the information found in the article is a bit of a challenge. If there are further prostitution studies not covered under "Studies of prostitution", those should be covered as well.
4) There are further verifiable published criticisms of Farley's studies and views that I have not included due to the article having been actively under dispute. These should be added to the article, within the bounds of Wikipedia's policies on balance and undue weight. Iamcuriousblue ( talk) 23:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I removed the most recent edit by User:Catherinebrown:
None of these citations are listed anywhere among the references, so its hard to tell where they are from, but I'm pretty sure none of these are specific critiques of Melissa Farley's assertions or research. Hence, even though the above clearly cites several sources for the statement, it is being applied here in a novel way, in violation of Wikipedia's rules about original synthesis, a subset of original research.
Now if this research is being used by a verifiable, citable source (according to Wikipedia's rules) to specifically contest Farley's assertions, then by all means, that belongs here, specifically citing that source as the primary one. Iamcuriousblue ( talk) 04:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the "POV" and "factual accuracy" tags for this article. The content of this article has not been in dispute for 6 months now, and an RfC and an NPOV noticeboard notice have been run to ask if anybody has any remaining objections to the article. Since there haven't been any objections (other than a call for more biographical content), and, I think, balanced and accurately reflecting published sources, I'm removing these dispute tags.
I will vet this article further at the WP:BLP noticeboard shortly. Iamcuriousblue ( talk) 15:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
--Obviously this article is still in dispute and has POV problems. The author, iamcuriousblue, is completely biased against the subject. This article has been under dispute for years now and will remain so as long as no other persons are allowed to edit the article except Mr. iamcuriousblue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.249.50 ( talk) 08:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Presumably, this finally represents the termination of this long, ugly dispute: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Axiomatica/Archive. – Iamcuriousblue ( talk) 05:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I know it's not very polite, but I've gone ahead and removed the Expand template since the article seems to be pretty well fleshed out. Feel free to re-add the template, but please discuss the reasoning here. 98.71.197.85 ( talk) 16:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)