Talk:Melissa Farley/Archive 2

message: ====Statement by User:Peter G Werner====
*Melissa Farley is an extremely controversial subject. As with any controversial person, I feel that NPOV presentation of that person and their views, as well as full and NPOV presentation of the controversy about that person is warrented. While there are special guidelines to biographies of living persons, I do not feel this should be used as an excuse to expunge or silence very real critcisms of that person.I feel the term "radical feminist" is an accurate descriptor of the ideological position of Melissa Farely, as reading any number of her works (especially the non-academic ones) linked to in this article. Admitedly, I have not seen a statement to the effect of "I am a radical feminist" from Melissa Farley, but its clear from her writing and its clear that this POV informs her research. The article originally described her as a "radical feminist research psychologist", which I think accurately contextualizes her work. User:Axiomatica has removed the "radical feminist" part, an edit that I dispute. I also note Melissa Farley's opposition to all forms of sex work and her opposition to the term "sex work" itself. In spite of the fact that the subject of the article happens not to like the term, I cannot find a better general term for prostitution, pornography modeling, and stripping, collectively. I also note that its only among radical feminism and some conservatives that the term "sex work" is considered problematic – the term is commonly used by many NGOs and health workers.Also, User:Axiomatica has stated their intention to invite the subject of this article, Melissa Farley, to help edit the article. I find this move very troubling and in direct violation of the stated guidelines in WP:Autobiography.User:Axiomatica and I both have serious doubts about the neutrality of each others edits. In real life, I'm strongly opposed to Melissa Farley's views and think that her research is highly flawed. I nonetheless have attempted to make a good-faith effort to present the subject and the controversy around the subject in a fair NPOV manner. User:Axiomatica has stated their intention to create a more NPOV article, however, I find that many of the edits advocated by this user unfairly blunt or censor real criticisms of Melissa Farley and her work and tilt the article toward an advocacy POV. Peter G Werner 06:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moving criticisms to a "Criticism" section is hardly "blunting" criticism. It is an attempt to create an orderly encyclopedia entry. Take a look at the Bill O'Reilly bio.  His critics are certainly more notable that the ones listed in this article and they are in a criticisms section. That does not blunt their criticism.--Axiomatica 00:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

message: *Melissa Farley is an extremely controversial subject. As with any controversial person, I feel that NPOV presentation of that person and their views, as well as full and NPOV presentation of the controversy about that person is warrented. While there are special guidelines to biographies of living persons, I do not feel this should be used as an excuse to expunge or silence very real critcisms of that person.I feel the term "radical feminist" is an accurate descriptor of the ideological position of Melissa Farely, as reading any number of her works (especially the non-academic ones) linked to in this article. Admitedly, I have not seen a statement to the effect of "I am a radical feminist" from Melissa Farley, but its clear from her writing and its clear that this POV informs her research. The article originally described her as a "radical feminist research psychologist", which I think accurately contextualizes her work. User:Axiomatica has removed the "radical feminist" part, an edit that I dispute. I also note Melissa Farley's opposition to all forms of sex work and her opposition to the term "sex work" itself. In spite of the fact that the subject of the article happens not to like the term, I cannot find a better general term for prostitution, pornography modeling, and stripping, collectively. I also note that its only among radical feminism and some conservatives that the term "sex work" is considered problematic – the term is commonly used by many NGOs and health workers.Also, User:Axiomatica has stated their intention to invite the subject of this article, Melissa Farley, to help edit the article. I find this move very troubling and in direct violation of the stated guidelines in WP:Autobiography.User:Axiomatica and I both have serious doubts about the neutrality of each others edits. In real life, I'm strongly opposed to Melissa Farley's views and think that her research is highly flawed. I nonetheless have attempted to make a good-faith effort to present the subject and the controversy around the subject in a fair NPOV manner. User:Axiomatica has stated their intention to create a more NPOV article, however, I find that many of the edits advocated by this user unfairly blunt or censor real criticisms of Melissa Farley and her work and tilt the article toward an advocacy POV. Peter G Werner 06:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moving criticisms to a "Criticism" section is hardly "blunting" criticism. It is an attempt to create an orderly encyclopedia entry. Take a look at the Bill O'Reilly bio.  His critics are certainly more notable that the ones listed in this article and they are in a criticisms section. That does not blunt their criticism.--Axiomatica 00:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Peter G Werner]]

message: My interest here is in removing bias and accurately reflecting the biography, research, and conclusions of the subject in question in an encyclopedic and NPOV tone. I understand that Iamcuriousblue aka Peter G Werner may disagree with Dr. Farley's conclusions, and even dislike her, but I take my cue on biographies from WP:BLP which very clearly states that the views of critics should be relevant, well-sourced, and "should not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics". I continually urge Mr. Werner to create Wikipedia pages for the critics of Dr. Farley's work so we can link to them.
Regarding the 3 items currently in dispute:
#About title "radical feminist". The fact that this cannot be sourced should be the end of the question.  If that is not enough, WP:BLP clearly states that Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced.  The term "radical feminist" is clearly contentious. I would also say that placing it as the first words in the title is quite misleading.  "A radical feminist research psychologist" could be interpreted as a research psychologist who studies radical feminists. 
#About the term "sex work".  My investigation has shown that Dr. Farley does not use this term in her work. It is also apparently not a common term in the field of serious social science and psychological research.  Even the Wikipedia "sex work" page refers to it as a "political term."  I see no problem in using the extra words "prostitution, pornography modeling, and stripping" if that is indeed what is being discussed at the time.  There is no need for a trendy, political hot button phrase to be in this biography. 
#Mr. Werner seems unduly concerned with the fact that I have asked Dr. Farley for cites and sources on her research and writing. I'm not sure how to react to that.  This biography entry was in need of serious sourcing and citing. Who would know better than Dr. Farley what she has said and where she is cited?  I don't see anything wrong with trying to create an accurate and useful biographical entry.
It has taken far too long for these simple edits to be done.  Now that I have been dragged into this, I am in the process of writing up a short section on Dr. Farley's research, so I imagine this won't be the last time we will issue a request for comments. --Axiomatica 08:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Axiomatica]]

message: I believe this has been settled. If there are no cites, it should not be in the entry.--Axiomatica 01:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The term is explicitly referred to in the critiques by Weitzer, is referenced, and should definitely remain in the section that its in, concerning criticism of Farley research and biases. Tracy Quan also criticizes Farley's "extreme form of feminism". Peter G Werner 01:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The title "radical feminist"

message: Wikipedia policy in WP:BLP states that 
"The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on 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' material. 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."
By putting the criticisms in a Criticism section we can easily comply with the Wikipedia policy.--Axiomatica 01:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you read Wikipedia:Criticism, rather than basing everything on your own rather creative interpretations of WP:BLP. Wikipedia:Criticism is quite clear on avoiding segregating criticisms into a "Criticisms" section whenever it is possible. And I hardly think the space given to criticisms even begins to be "disproportionate" (nor do her critics amount to some "tiny minority"). You are clearly in the wrong here as regards Wikipedia policy. Peter G Werner 01:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you didn't notice, but Wikipedia:Criticism is an "essay".  It is one person's opinion and that opinion is the subject of a significant amount of discussion and debate which so far renders the writer's point of view as a minority opinion.  On the other hand, WP:BLP is the official policy of Wikipedia.  If you are unclear on the difference between an essay and an official policy, I would refer you to WP:Policy which clearly delinieates the difference between policies, guidelines, and essays.  This article also suggests a myriad of ways in which people can work together toward a better article and I sincerely suggest we follow those guidelines.--Axiomatica 04:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In any event, there is no stated Wikipedia policy that states criticisms must go in a "Criticisms" section. Its simply what you want, and I don't think its the best course for the article. As regards WP:BLP, your interpretation of it is "creative" to put it mildly. Peter G Werner 04:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism in a criticism section

message: This was done for privacy reasons as per WP:BLP.  Then iamcuriouosblue aka Peter G Werner put it back in. Since Wikipedia policy is crystal clear on this question, I am removing it immediately. This is another example of an edit that should really not be in contention.--Axiomatica 01:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll grant that you are partly correct on this issue. The "city of residency" language should go. That Melissa Farley's organization is based in San Francisco, that much of her research is done in that city (and I don't think the word "much" is an exaggeration – "much" does not mean "most" or "all"), and that she is sometimes active in the politics of that city regarding sex work issues (eg, the Kink.com/Armory issue), however, is all information that is relevant to this article. Peter G Werner 01:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing Dr. Farley's city of residence

message: Even a cursory look at Dr. Farley's publications make it clear that most of her research has not take place in San Francisco.  Among the countries where she has conducted research are: Canada, Columbia, Germany, Mexico, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey, United States, and Zambia. (from the summary of Prostitution and Trafficking in Nine Countries as cited in the article.)  This is another example of an edit that should be quite straightforward, yet iamcuriousblue aka Peter G Werner chose to add it back into the article.  I am removing it because it is simply erroneous.--Axiomatica 01:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "San Francisco, where she has conducted most of her research"

message: I have added the beginnings of a research section.  These are simple statements of the date of research, the authors of the study, and the conclusions they drew. The links to cites and sources needs major work, but most of these are already linked to.  It just seemed to make sense to lay out the basic outline of the research that seems to be at the core of all the "controversy."
: This is fucking UNBELIEVABLE! Do you think a huge list of direct quotes has any place Wikipedia article? The information needs to be summarized, not just presented as a quotefarm. Just to let you know, I'll continue to revert this material as long as its presented in this form. Jesus, you claim not to be Nikki Craft, but you are doing exactly the same SHIT she was doing six months ago. Peter G Werner 08:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just in case there's any question over what was reverted, it can be found under "Research" here. It should be obvious that this information is just simply a large list of direct quotes. Peter G Werner 08:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These "quotes" come directly from the research study summary statements.  These are all published studies.  I have no problem with them being rewritten in prose, but given the contentious nature of this entry, I think the actual words from the summary are the most accurate representation of what the researcher(s) concluded.  When I originally arrived at this article, all I could glean is that she was opposed to prostitution and "sex workers" didn't like that.  There is clearly a body of work here that you don't want to see the light of day.  I would refer you to any number of entries on research scientists, for a view of what the biography of a researcher should look like.  It is not at all unusual for the results of research to be described in a biography entry.--Axiomatica 08:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Research

message: I have archived last years discussion here. Kevin 09:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived talk