Jump to content

Talk:Melissa Farley

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"johns"

[edit]

I suggest that the first use of the term "johns" be quoted. Despite its common use it remains a slang term. --96.233.84.118 (talk) 10:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point, but I believe most academic articles about the subject use the term "john" without quotes. Or the more neutral/academic, "men who buy sex", though there's a conflict here (as there is in several places, eg, "prostituted woman") between Farley's usage of terminology and usage in academic sociology more generally. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Criminals

[edit]

I just want to note that the repeated adding of Category:Criminals to this article is a blatant violation of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. I will also note that User:RyanRetroWickawack's edit summary statement "She is a criminal, so I added the category tag. Any attempted chages will be reverted" is a pretty blatant violation of WP:CIVIL, not to mention provocative and not one that could be excused as an unfortunate statement made in the heat of an argument.

This edit, of course, is a serious over-application of this category, which is one that is to be used *cautiously* for biographies of career criminals (though in most cases, a more specific subcategory would be used). If this category were to actually be used for anybody who has been convicted in court of a crime, everybody from Robert Downey, Jr. to Martin Luther King, Jr. would be placed in the "criminal" category. Obviously, this isn't done in those or other biographies and should not be done here.

I do want to caution against going in the opposite direction, namely, removal of the statement "Farley was arrested 13 different times in 9 different states for these actions." The inclusion of this information, though clearly supported with citations from several news sources and a book chapter by Farley herself, was a repeated point of contention and edit warring by a now-banned editor who was a rabid supporter of Farley. I caution against this, because I have been noticing an overzealous trend on what has been broadly called "BLP culture" to blindly purge all contentious or negative statements out any BLP article, to the point of moving away from NPOV toward "Sympathetic Point of View". Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Farley and the American Psychological Association

[edit]

I removed the claim by 79.69.82.238 that the complaint had been successful. The APA stated that such matters were best dealt with in the academic field (as freedom of academic expression), and not a matter for censure or removal. But they also stated it was concerned and would keep an eye out. Other complaints had been made. - (unsigned, undated)

I again removed the comment Farley has had her membership revoked by the APA. The reference given as evidence of Farley’s removal,(http://www.apapracticecentral.org/index.aspx), points only to a Practice Central page, with resources for psychologists. It does not provide proof that Farley has been dropped by the APA. - (unsigned, undated)

Melissa Farley is no longer accredited psychologist in APA after facing ethics violations for academic fraud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.208.204.151 (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a citation quickly or this will be taken to Wikipedia:Oversight. Incidentally, the APA is not a regulatory agency or organization and does not "accredit" psychologists. Location (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Burden of proof is justify the claim she is member of APA http://search.apa.org/search?limited=true&section=membership&query=Farley — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.208.204.151 (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
She is licensed in California, membership in the APA is voluntary, the article states nothing about her membership or lack of membership in the APA, and you have no citation for your claim claims that some sort of disciplinary action was taken. Location (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1) She is registered not licensed, very different things[1]. 2) Membership of third part organisation is irrelevant to claim she is accredited member of APA especially given that a search of their membership list proves she is NOT a member. 3) The burden of proof remains to prove she is a member. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.208.204.151 (talk) 15:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see no issue worth sweating over. The article as it stands right now does not try to say that Farley is a member of the American Psychological Association—it does not try to leverage such a membership to add credibility. Farley's research is credible because of multiple citations from other researchers. Binksternet (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the APA is dead and leads nowhere. As for her research being "credible" just because other researchers cite them who does? Wikipedia is ment to be unbiased and not take sides on the pornography debate. If it's from radical feminists than it doesn't count. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 17:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting controversy section

[edit]

The fact that Melissa Farley has advocated for the destruction of pornography stores and was arrested for it sounds like it warrents a controversy section since it sounds like she was breaking the law to do so. Even if that counts as civil disobedience it still looks like the fact that she broke the law sounds like it caused a bit of controversy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 17:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of reliably-sourced content

[edit]

Dragnet54, who may have a COI, has removed reliably-sourced content. Miniapolis 17:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Dragnet54 has removed reliably-sourced content, and overtly biased this article into one that is purely laudatory toward Farley, and endorses her questionable "research" on prostitution. The blatantly POV term "prostituted woman" is even reintroduced to this article. I've been bold and reverted the lot of this, and will later take a closer look at the reverted edits to see if anything of worth was added in those changes and re-add such content if I find it.
In general, this article has been a target of advocates of Melissa Farley's point of view since a close associate of Farley, Nikki Craft, introduced this article as a hagiography of Farley over 10 years ago. This article needs to remain balanced, neither favoring Farley's view, nor those of her critics, and not endorsing Farley's claims. This is the same standard that an article about any controversial author or researcher (example: Bjørn Lomborg) should be held to. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Melissa Farley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

¿Should not we mention that she is a liar?

[edit]

She just makes shit up. This is what a sexworker says about her lies:

http://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/resources/frequently-told-lies/

Considering that wiki guidelines do not even allow linking to pages that have full copies of the complaint letters people have written against her (because they're not official enough), that would be considered bias. Whether that linking standard should be bent a little, considering that this is information in favour of a persecuted group being informally maintained by the members & allies of said group because official sources will not do so, is a matter for more experienced wikipedians to discuss.~
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Melissa_Farley&oldid=1257745462"