Talk:Melissa Farley/Archive 4

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

It would be nice if the article subject wants it blanked, she either contact the Foundation or participate in any mediation, but because she is under no obligation to do so, her not doing anything does not in my view support any inference of bad faith on Axiomatica's part. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 03:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There is simply knowing one way or the other about the veracity of Axiomatica's claims to be acting on behalf of Farley. I would suggest if Farley has issues with the article that she set up an account and communicate directly (and perhaps take part in Mediation), though the guidelines of WP:Autobiography would certainly apply here. (I'm also not clear how one would determine whether somebody posing under that name really was Farley.) In any event, I'm a bit perplexed by John Carter's suggestion that if Farley did make contact that she could call for blanking or for editing beyond the guidelines of WP:BLP. I have to ask on what basis? Since when does an article subject get to dictate what is written here about them, if that material meets the standards of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY, etc? Having subjects dictate article content totally flies in the face of WP:Autobiography and WP:NPOV. Unless Wikipedia policies have undergone dramatic changes, I just don't see what the basis for this is. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 06:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I think a sound basis is that (quoting from a recent arbcom case) "Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be 'do no harm.'" Anyway, mediation is long overdue. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 19:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

In response to Iamcuriousblue, I am not personally aware of the exact reasoning behind the idea of allowing BLP's to be removed on the basis of the subject's request. However, there are precedents for such removal, generally done through OTRS I believe, and on that basis I assume that the possibility exists that those principles, whatever they are, could apply here as well. Seth Finkelstein is one case I know of, and presumably others exist as well. And, regretably, I don't think mediation would work between Iamcuriousblue and Axiomatica is possible unless Axiomatica appears and agrees to the mediation. John Carter (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

"Research psychologist"

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:

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.
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.

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 suppose #2 might be adequate for "research psychologist". However, in spite of the phrasing used by that reference, it's not grammatically correct. Perhaps we should use the phrasing from #3 above, "clinical psychologist and researcher", provided it's not clearly a quote from the subject. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. And I can understand reservations about the phrasing, but, trust me, we have arguments about phrasing all the way through featured article candidacy. For an article at this level, although the points are still valid and should be addressed, they maybe aren't so important as to remove the phrasing altogether, unless it's really bad, like "Bill done blew the election by talkin silly to reporters in da bus" or something at that level. John Carter (talk) 23:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"Clinical psychologist and researcher" is fine. Its not a quote from the subject. Agreed then? Iamcuriousblue (talk) 23:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Catherinebrown's 7/23/08 edit

I just reverted an edit that removed the following paragraph from this article:

Farley and the coauthors of this paper state that their findings contradict what they refer to as "myths" about prostitution: that street prostitution is worse for prostitutes than other forms of prostitution, that male prostitution is different from female prostitution, that individuals who are in prostitution have freely consented to it, that most prostitutes are in prostitution as a result of drug addiction, that there is a qualitative difference between prostitution and human trafficking, and that legalizing or decriminalizing prostitution would reduce its harm.[1]

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)

RfC: NPOV and BLP issues?

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 saw a request for comment on this. Here's my two cents. This article does not seem to be a biography about the chronological events in Melissa Farley's life. It seems to be more about Farley's opinion on things. She was born in 1942, nothing happened in her life for the next 51 years, but then she started research in 1993, she has a bunch of opinions, and here they are? Someone above posted "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." If that is true, then this topic can't be fit into a biography. Maybe the article should be retitled Melissa Farley's Studies of Prostitutes. Suntag (talk) 02:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, its indeed unfortunate about the lack of biographical detail, but given the lack of published verifiable sources on that, that's kind of unavoidable. As for the rest of it, biographical articles often have detailed discussion of the ideas, studies, and work of a subject – look at the articles on David Hume, Bjørn Lomborg, or Andrea Dworkin for comparison. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Posting a detailed discussion of the ideas, studies, and work of a subject may not be sufficient to make an article a biographical article. Since there is little biographical detail, the article cannot cover all of her life. This creates an imbalance in the article in the amount of text devoted to her life experiences vs. the amount of text devoted to products she produced and opinions she has held. I think if you narrow the topic down from trying to be a biography by revising the name of the article, the article would seem more balanced. I don't have any proposed changes to the text of the article, but I think people do sense its imbalance from the lack of life experience information. So long as the article is presented as a biography, I think people will continue to say it is imbalance. Suntag (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed section per WP:SYN

I removed the most recent edit by User:Catherinebrown:

Her assertion that the experience of male prostitutes is no different from female prostitutes is highly contentious and not supported by many other studies which indicate that male workers, experience much less violence and exploitation and exercise greater control over working conditions than female and transgender workers (Aggleton, 1999; Valera, Sawyer, & Schiraldi, 2001; Weinberg, Shaver, & Williams, 1999; West 1993).

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)

Yes. References need to state what they refer to, especially if they support a claim that is contentious. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 03:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed POV and "Factual accuracy" tags

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)

Sigh. Would you care to offer specifics on what constitutes "bias" in this article, other than the above ad-hominum argument? If its your assertion that "unbiased" represents the rabidly pro-Farley POV pushed last year by User:Axiomatica, then I dispute your claim of bias. Nonetheless I will keep the tag in place for up to several months, until hopefully other editors become involved and a truly consensus version emerges. Other editors are certainly "allowed" to edit this article, but so am I. I have and will continue to actively remove edits that violate Wikipedia's rules concerning NPOV and original research, whether pro- or anti-Melissa Farley. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 11:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed tags again. Please add a section to the Talk page here describing at least some particulars (there may be general tone problems as well, but a few specifics, please) before putting them back. She is certainly controversial, so POV problems are plausible, but we need a more specific indication of what's disputed. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 16:30, 5 May 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)

Expand template

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)

That tag has been there for a while, and the section on health research is the only glaring omission. (I've been collecting Farley's papers and abstracts on the subject recently, so hopefully I'll get a chance to fill this in soon.) Like any article, there are probably several important areas that could be covered in more depth, but nothing glaring. So your move of the tag from the article header to one section was appropriate. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)