Talk:Melissa Farley/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

umm why second wave removed as not relevant on Melissa Farley?

a certainly well meaning if somewhat strident and controversial figure especially in anti-colonialist circles.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  Thank you CyntWorkStuff 17:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Because I don't feel the term "second wave" is relevant or accurate in her case. "Second wave" refers to a specific historic moment in feminism starting in the mid-1960s and pretty much imploding with the Feminist Sex Wars of the 1980s. Farley's work largely comes after this, but she certainly doesn't fit the label "third wave" very well either. As with many feminists, describing what "wave" of feminism she belongs to describes absolutely nothing about her ideas. Ellen Willis was also part of the "second wave" – does that mean her and Farley have anything in common? Its also a case of trying to provide parallelism and consistency between articles. Do articles about, say, Andrea Dworkin or Nikki Craft (who are from the same branch of feminism) start off by describing them as "second wave"?

"Anti-pornography feminist" might be fitting, even though most of Farley's writing has been about prostitution, she's certainly part of the same movement as Andrea Dworkin, etc. You get no argument from me about Farley being "strident and controversial", as well as being the author of an incredibly biased piece of research that unfortunately is cited all-too-often as the last word on prostitution. Not that I support putting such clearly POV language into the article. Expanding the present stub into a balanced article about Farley and her research would be a good contribution if anybody is up for it, though. Peter G Werner 18:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Have as per your above note, have found the article Anti-pornography movement and added it as an "also see" CyntWorkStuff 18:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that very reasonable and lucid explanation. As you can guess I have been waiting in trepidation for your reply fearing you to be some sort of rabid partisan of hers who would berate me.

I very much agree that her work is highly academically suspect on a number of levels and that she is more the leader in a philosophical movement than a serious scholar.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  But other than she is serious bad news I don't know enough factual info about her to really expand to much, but I'll look around. CyntWorkStuff 00:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

CyntWorkStuff thinks Melissa Farley's work is "highly academically suspect", but has no information to back up her accusation. I think I'll lay my money on Dr. Farley's research methods.

Also, I agree that "second wave" feminist is peripheral, unnecessary and even not accurate, --Nikkicraft 05:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, CyntWorkStuff doesn't have the reference, but I do:

“Flawed Theory and Method in Studies of Prostitution” by Ronald Weitzer (Violence Against Women 1(7): 934–949, July 2005).

In brief, his criticisms of the Farley's methodology include 1) huge sampling bias (street prostitution and other highly marginalized prostitutes cannot be taken as representative of all prostitutes), and 2) no reporting of how the questions were asked (did Farley get the results she wanted by asking leading questions? - her study does not eliminate that possibility).

I plan on adding a section discussing these criticisms of Farley's work soon. (Including any response Farley may have made to such criticisms.)

Also, does the fact that you'd "put your money on Dr. Farley's research methods" have anything to do with the fact that you happen to be a close associate of hers? Peter G Werner 05:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought that entries about Living People on Wikipedia are expected to be made from an informed, neutral perspective, and are to be sourced. It wasn't apparent from the prior conversation if either of you had read any of Farley's 22 peer-reviewed publications.

Yes, my opinion is based on my direct knowledge of Dr. Farley and her research that spans nine countries. Farley has interviewed 854 women and men prostituting as escorts, lapdancers, massage parlor workers as well as in the street. That's what I base my previous comments on.

Weitzer attacked Farley's article, 'Bad for the Body, Bad for the Heart': Prostitution Harms Women Even if Legalized or Decriminalized, because he supports across-the-board decriminalization. Farley supports decriminalization of women in prostitution but not pimps and johns. She published a response to Weitzer, called Prostitution Harms Women Even if Indoors: Reply to Weitzer.

Speaking of "academically suspect", Weitzer published in this issue of the Gauntlet a few years back which isn't exactly the place where reputable peer-reviewed research is published. --Nikkicraft 08:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Peter, You mentioned wanting to post Dr. Farley's response to Weitzer. I hunted it up for you and the pdf document is posted above. Also thanks for removing the anti-feminist vandalism that was on this article for nearly a month. --Nikkicraft 10:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

First, thank you for the PDF of Melissa Farley's response to Weitzer. That will be helpful in maintaining a balanced discussion if I should expand this article at some point.

"I thought that entries about Living People on Wikipedia are expected to be made from an informed, neutral perspective" – Articles about anybody are supposed to be written from an informed, neutral perspective. However, "informed" does not mean that the WP author needs to have read every single publication by an author. WP is not Britannica, after all, and it relies mainly on the contributions of non-academics, who may not exactly be well-versed in the peer-reviewed publications on a given topic. And "neutral" does not mean that a WP author does not have a point of view on a subject, but simply that the author strives to write the article from a neutral and balanced POV. I've refrained from adding a section discussing criticisms for the time being, since the article itself is only a stub and a section on criticisms of her work should only be added if there is also already a section discussing her research and her POV.

The article that is most cited concerning Farley is "Prostitution & Trafficking in Nine Countries: an Update on Violence and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder" and it is this article that Weitzer directly criticizes for its methodological flaws. The prostitutes interviewed in this study represent nine populations of highly marginalized street prostitutes, yet the findings are often used to represent the experiences of all prostitutes and all sex workers. If Farley has published research on escorts, strippers, porn actors, etc., I'd like to see a reference.

"Weitzer attacked Farley's article....because he supports across-the-board decriminalization." So? – It does not at all follow that Weitzer cannot make a valid criticism of Farley's methodology because he opposes her politically. In any event, Weitzer's own POV of course deserves mention in a section discussing criticisms of Farley.

"Speaking of "academically suspect", Weitzer published in this issue of the Gauntlet a few years back which isn't exactly the place where reputable peer-reviewed research is published" – So what! The article I've cited by Weitzer is an academic review article from Violence Against Women, a peer-reviewed social science journal. The idea that because he has also written for a popular, partisan publication he therefore cannot do proper academic work is ludicrous. If you're going to apply that standard, you should also apply it to Farley, who's written articles for NoStatusQuo, not exactly a place where reputable peer-reviewed research is published, either! Peter G Werner 16:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

link to 'sexwork' restored

Some brave person who only identified themselves by their IP Address deleted a link evidentially because it did not correspond to their philosophical views and then left a dumb statement as to why they were censoring women's voices. I have restored it.

People should remember that this is an Encyclopedia. If you want to make a "Fan Page" may I suggest you try MySpace and other more appropriate venues. CyntWorkStuff 17:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Don't assume the worst intentions without first finding out the circumstances. I was, by accident, not signed to my Wikipedia account when I deleted the link. I removed this link because it misrepresents Farley and even takes her quote and removes the last half of the sentence and unethically replaces the last part of her sentence with an ellipse and because it is about a Living People and unethically misrepresents Farley's position. Not only does she never use the term "sex worker" but she has never stated they are all "abused" and "sick" as the article headline claims. I plan to delete this link again, however before I do I'd like to hear advise from other Wikipedia editors who are more aware of this process than I am for advice on how I should handle this. Thanks. --Nikkicraft 21:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I have gotten rid of the link as it contained nothing but second-hand information. I did, however, add a link to Weitzer's critique of Farley's work and a link to Farley's response. Peter G Werner 21:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Peter. I had just looked for it and thought I had accidently deleted it in all my reorganizing so that's a relief. I'm about to add Melissa's articles with links where I can. It will take me some time and I'll be as careful as possible, but it might take some tidying up when I'm done cause it's so much information.

I'll leave a few good quotes on her page and put the rest on wikiquotes in a bit. How can i edit the "category" section at the bottom of the discussion page? --Nikkicraft 22:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Peter can you please let me know how to make the journal entries into Italics? I can't just add html coding for italics can I? --Nikkicraft 23:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Italics are two apostrophes, boldface is three. Peter G Werner 23:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It finally occurred to me to just copy and paste what you had written. I thought you were putting quotes and couldn't figure out why it would not make itals. I would now like to make the two articles section text smaller than the bolded headers. Can you please tell me that and i believe that will take care of everything I need to know to tidy up things on the article." --Nikkicraft 23:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This makes things small.

This works for reference sections. Perhaps it could be used elsewhere.

Desperately seeking her CV, etc.

Also have looked at a number of other academic's entries and think this one should also follow a bit more in the standard mode. So I'm also going to change "Book" to "Selected bibliography" so Articles and things she's contributed to can be added in. Other data missing includes

• Date and place of birth

• Information on family (parents, siblings, partnered/married, children, grandchildren, etc.)

• Education Undergraduate Degree (Thesis Topic) + Masters Degree (Thesis Topic) + Doctorate (1973 University of Iowa, College of Education - Thesis Topic?) + Post Doc. BTW I just put her Graduate School (College of Education) into the University of Iowa Article and was going to add her to the list of "Notable Alumni".

• Also need dates of where she was employed and when, etc.

Again her CV would probably be so helpful if anyone can find it (also it ought to be in her links). Thanks CyntWorkStuff 22:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Desperately? Why are you so desperate to locate 'private' information about Melisssa Farley's "family (parents, siblings, partnered/married, children, grandchildren, etc.)" and dates and location of employment when you are such a coward that you don't even edit Wikipedia using your own name, or show you face on your own talkpage?

Farley did not request to be listed on Wikipedia. She is listed here because of her work against prostitution. Why should her grandchildren be brought into this at all by someone so shady they won't even tell us there own name? I don't understand. --Nikkicraft 18:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It is against wikipedia's WP:BLP policy to get into personal details on bios of living persons without a clear encyclopedic reason. Privacy concerns are moral, policy, and in fact Florida law. The general rule of thumb is to only print personal details that mainsteam publishers have printed so we can substitute their profesional opinion for ours and not get into endless agruments over where to draw the line. WAS 4.250 08:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note only looking for sugested information as listed on Template:Biography Thank you 172.150.12.43 16:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Quotes and links

An extensive list of quotes like this belongs on Wikiquote, not Wikipedia. The quotes should go there, then a link to Wikiquote added to the bottom of this article. The Andrea Dworkin article provides a good example of this.

Posting somebody's entire CV is not really considered appropriate either (though a listing of most notable books and articles definitely should be included). Hosting something like this off of Wikipedia and then linking to it should be OK, though. Peter G Werner 00:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Reponding to CyntWorkStuff's unsubstantiated and false accusations about Melissa Farley

Moving CyntWorkStuff off my user page to this page because it relates to this page and this will be where I will be responding to her unsubstatiated and false accusations against Melissa Farley --Nikkicraft 02:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

She wrote:.

• in re: Melissa Farley

Hi. I see that we are two of the people looking at the above article, so I thought I'd come over and introduce myself. My "about me" page is here CyntWorkStuff and you can reply to me directly here on MyTalk page.

First I must tell you that I am just a computer programmer not a scholar. Also I'm afraid that I am not that conversant with subject of the article but am willing to look stuff up and learn.

From the little I know, Ms. Farley is a well meaning American lady who is obviously moved by the plight of some other women in distress. I just know that there is some concern (especially in anti-colonialist circles,‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  who I'm sorry to say, have compared her to the middle class London Missionary Society ladies, et. al. ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  who in there haste to help what they saw as the "downtrodden savages" ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  trampled willy-nilly over indigenous cultures & religions) that her good heart and passion may at times lead her to stray into the outskirts of zealotry.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

I'm sure you will be disturbed to note that some ignorant person removed a link to a site where some women who are actually in the sex industry (the very subject of Ms. Farley's work!) discuss points of commonality and difference. I've put it back and added a stern warning about this being an encyclopedia not some sort of teenage Tiger Beat fan club.

I'm also a little concerned about that "Quote" there as being perhaps a deliberate attempt to make Ms. Farley look silly, strident & ignorant and the article itself look NPOV. I mean everyone says off-the-cuff things from time to time or is taken out of context. Maybe someone could come up with a more reasoned and scholarly quote?

Looking forward to working with you on the article. CyntWorkStuff 20:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. Probably no one told you, but to "talk" to another user you take the same title, go to THEIR "mytalk" page, use the "+" sign at the top of the page to add in the new topc. Thereafter you go back and forth between each other's "mytalk" pages. Also note that I'm looking for Ms. Farley's CV. Do you know where an on-line copy is? Thanks CyntWorkStuff 23:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

CyntWorkStuff Do you have anything further to add before I begin responding to what you have been writing about Dr. Farley? --Nikkicraft 02:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

RESPONSE: CyntWorkStuff wrote that Dr. Farley is a "controversial figure especially in anti-colonialist circles.

This is unsubstantiated false accusation from CyntWorkStuff about a Living People, Dr. Melissa Farley. This is against Wikipedia policies, also it is irresponsible and unethical. I have repeated requested documentations for these accusations and she refuses to furnish them.

Farley was invited by the editor of the Fourth World Journal, to submit her work on prostitution and colonialism. After peer review, Prostitution of Indigenous Women: Sex Inequality and the Colonization of Canada’s First Nations Women was published on the Center for World Indigenous Studies website.

The editor of the Fourth World Journal, Rudolph Ryser, wrote an Introduction to Volume 6, Number 1 and Farley's work: "In this issue we have collected writings from some fine scholars and researchers who elevate to a new level the discussion of self government, traditional medicine and sexual violence in the Fourth World. The Fourth World Journal has been the venue for the discussion of subjects often dismissed or ignored. In the tradition of careful research and thoughtful analysis Dr. Melissa Farley presents here a peer-reviewed article detailing her findings of her research on First World prostitution of Fourth World peoples. This extraordinary piece exposes with precision and accuracy the devastating causes of prostitution and its deeply traumatic effects on First Nations women in present-day Vancouver and indigenous women the world over." --Nikkicraft 06:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

An unpopular and controversial figure especially in anti-colonialist circles? Hardly. In fact Farley is a faculty member of the Center for World Indigenous Studies and has published one of the first several peer-reviewed articles articulating prostitution as a consequence of colonialization.

"Within the gendered institution of prostitution, race and class create a hierarchy with indigenous women at its lowest point. For many women, the experience of prostitution stems from the historical trauma of colonization. -- Farley, M, Lynne, J, and Cotton, A (2005) Prostitution in Vancouver: Violence and the Colonization of First Nations Women. Transcultural Psychiatry 42: 242-271. --Nikkicraft 07:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something pivotal here, it is hardly against policy to make these sort of claims on a user's talk page, even if they are in error. Now, if you do not desire informal (user talk page) communications, that's fine, but please try to tone down the vehemence of the replies on the article talk page & elsewhere. This will help facilitate a collaborative atmosphere. Thanks. El_C 20:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Posting unsubstantiated rumor and factually incorrect information and refusing to supply a citation does not create a collaborative atmosphere as well. You have removed the part of the comments I was responding to from CyntWorkStuff, and I won't put those back, but please don't remove my responses unless you have some higher authority that I am unaware of to do so. I would not consider removing yours and am not even sure that is acceptable.--Nikkicraft 20:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

What, that she's controversial? I'm not sure I'm following what the dispute is about and why it's being noted on this aticle talk page, a page designed to deal with material -in- the entry. Again, feel free to fill me in if I missed something. And, yes, as a wikipedia sysop, I do have the authority to remove refractored comments, and I am exercizing it (now for the "final response") as it strikes me of being toned too personally and as being offtopic for the immediate purposes of this article talk page. El_C 00:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll replace my final--and I might add my only--reply to CyntWorkStuff now:

[removed, please do not refractor that comment here until you establish (on your talk page) that it is pertinent to this talk page] --Nikkicraft 19:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC) El_C 00:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

fixing the citations on wikiquotes page

I'll be fixing the citation for all the quotes on the quotation page tomorrow. I hope what I was able to accomplish this evening was helpful. --Nikkicraft 08:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Why can't i access the categories at the bottom of the discussion page?

We need to delete "Unknown-importance biography articles" and also perhaps "unassessed". How would that be done?

Those go with the large orangey box (WikiProject Biography Box) at the top of this page. It is so people who are part of that project can go thru all the biographies and make sure they are up to standard. They have not gotten to this one yet. Click on various links in the box and you can learn more about it. CyntWorkStuff 06:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

wikiquote page citations and Farley's research

Peter, thanks for transferring the quotes over. I had not known how to set up a Wikiquotes page, but I have opened up a Wikiquotes account and have now added the sources for all the Melissa Farley's quotations that I collected yesterday. (You made a section for "unsourced" quotations. I removed that because there really shouldn't be unsourced quotations for Living People (seems to me). Now on this, and associated pages, there are not just irresponsible speculations casting aspersions about the reliability of Farley's research, but actual citations and links that document how thorough her research actually is. --Nikkicraft 20:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Fixing Living People links

Hi, Can someone please let me know how I can fix all the "Living_people" links on this discussion page? I went to that particular web page and have unsuccessfully tried various combinations and can't get it to work. thanx! --Nikkicraft 21:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The text WP:BLP in brackets should provide a link. Peter G Werner 22:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Graci. --Nikkicraft 22:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. I had not meant that exact url. But actually it's better than the one I had in mind. So can you tell me the exact html coding that I should enter in the body of the article to direct the link there? Sorry for the confusion but I'm not familiar with all the various codes. I'm going to spend some time in the "help" area when I can ever get a chance. --Nikkicraft 23:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. In any event, Wikipedia encoding aren't HTML. Usually the best way to learn it is, if you see another page that looks the way you want the page you're editing to look, hit the "edit" button and copy that text. Since my knowledge is far from complete, its often how I do things. Peter G Werner 05:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I have been going to sites looking for how to do that and I can't find it, but i'll keep looking. The only place I can find the link is down in the caterories section and that won't work in the body of the article any way I have tried it. thanks.--Nikkicraft 18:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Unbolding Criticism Section

I've unbolded criticism. Perhaps I don't understand the hierarchy of the current layout, however the bolding of criticism represents to a lay reader a point of view and places too much emphasis on that section for the single link.

Cleaned up this discussion page

Hi, I realized there was a lot of duplication that got added to the page. I probably did it and if so it was not intentional. I removed that and hope I did it correctly. I also tried to clean up the indentations so it would be more readable. I hope that is okay and if it's not I apologize in advance. --Nikkicraft 20:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help in cleaning up the talk page, Nikkicraft. El_C 00:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Happy to do it since I was probably the person who messed it up the most. ; )

Please specifically explain why you think this page is not neutral

Hi Peter, Please explain in this section specifically why you think this page is not neutral and I will do my best to clean up any details but over all as far as I can see it's a pretty good article. Fill me in on why it isn't. Thanks, --Nikkicraft 01:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Among other things: "Farley's research contradicts commonly-held myths about prostitution: for example, the myth that street prostitution is the "worst type" of prostitution, the myth that most of those in prostitution "freely consent" to it, the myth that prostitution of men and boys is different from prostitution of women and girls, and the myth that legalizing or decriminalizing prostitution would decrease its harms." Myths about prostitution in your and Farley's opinion. The article as it stands is hugely biased and does not merely report Farley's POV, but actively advocates it. Peter G Werner 06:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It is general Wikipedia policy not to take an editorial stand for or against views, but rather report on them (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for more). We also like to not just simply state things, but source them (Wikipedia:Verifiability) and state only what can be determined from reliable outside sources rather than reaching original conclusions (Wikipedia:No original research).

In specific in this article, claims about Farley's research results and conclusions need to be attributed, not be in the 'editorial voice' and sourced (referenced, cited). It would be appropriate also to include responses to Farley's work and conclusions from others - especially notable people in the field, and whether positive or negative - indeed, both positive and negative responses would be preferable.

If there exist any external summaries of the field placing Farley's work among other researchers or in the wider intellectual community, it would be useful to source quotes and opinions there, too, to place her work in context. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This is absolutely understood by me, Matthew. I don't think Nikki Craft's version was exactly NPOV, and the version just left by 68.33.159.194 is just as biased in the opposite direction. Melissa Farley is an extremely controversial writer and hence is an inherently controversial topic. I will try to write a more NPOV version over the next day or two with direct references to writings by her and by one of her main critics, Ronald Weitzer. (As for supporters, I'm sure I could find plenty of supportive quotes among anti-prostitution/anti-porn authors, but I honestly don't know if she has many supporters in the social science research community.) Just to be up front about it, my own POV is directly opposed to that of Farley, however, I also take the idea of NPOV seriously. Peter G Werner 20:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, since both the Nikkicraft and 68.33.159.194 versions are both biased, I've simply reverted the entire article down to a stub. An NPOV version of this article can be written if people can refrain from POV-warrioring for long enough. Peter G Werner 23:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

RE:"RVV", I treated the ip's changes as simple vandalism (removal of book, etc.). I copyedited the text, only to realize that it needed to be a better referenced piece (esp. for such a lengthy bibliography), and that it lacked the organization of a chronological biographical account, with concepts and positions referenced to specific works, criticisms by and of the subject, more about the organization, and so on. I'll try to look more closely into it later. El_C 00:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

WHAT ABOUT PEER REVIEW DON'T Y'ALL UNDERSTAND?

Peter, you need to document your inaccurate claim that Farley has not researched off street prostitution. You're wrong. Also you're requesting peer review of research that has already been peer reviewed. Are you actually suggesting that Wiki reviewers supplant the rigorous professional standards of peer review? : ) Farley has been peer reviewed in more than 20 law, psychology and medical journals, including Transcultural Psychiatry, Yale Journal of Law & Feminism, Journal of Trauma Practice, Women and Health, Feminism and Psychology, Women & Criminal Justice, Women & Therapy, Journal of Family Practice, Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, Psychological Reports, Psychotherapy & Psychosomatics, to name a few. --Nikkicraft 05:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

1) I didn't make the peer review request, but I'm glad it was made, since its brought other people in to properly moderate this process. 2) You are the one who is misunderstanding the meaning of "peer review" in this context – this is Wikipedia peer review, not academic peer review. The purpose of Wikipedia peer review is to evaluate Wikipedia articles according to the standards of Wikipedia – NPOV, proper citation, no original research, that kind of thing.
I really suggest you familiarize yourself with the basic guidelines of Wikipedia so you better understand the process before launching ill-informed criticisms. I particularly recommend that you read through the section on Neutral Point of View (one of the most important rules of Wikipedia), because most of your contribution to the Farley article was anything but that. Peter G Werner 19:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Explanation

Hello everybody! I've been asked by an anonymous user here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pv7721&diff=prev&oldid=78177641 to explain my edit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Melissa_Farley&diff=78068280&oldid=72720999 Actually, for me a wiki stub is like a one liner article. And this one is largely more than one screen of information. So it is definitely NOT a wiki stub! Then there is this wikiproject of biographies that has filled all the talk pages with a template indicating the level of the article! As I don't know the project's way of labeling the article I don't have the slightest idea what's a stub for the biographies wikiproject. I think it's up to whoever knows bet to rerate this article. Thanks! --Vlad|-> 16:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It most certainly is a stub and I've added a tag for it again – just look at the actual content of the article. It may have a rather extensive bibliography (and its highly questionable whether that even belongs on a Wikipedia article), but the content is minimal. Part of the problem is that, so far, editors of this article have been so highly partisan that the only way to deal with the NPOV dispute in the short term was to knock it back to a stub. Hopefully, at some point well be able to come up with an NPOV article that's a little more informative. Peter G Werner 21:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)