Jump to content

Talk:Melissa Farley

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.141.249.50 (talk) at 08:02, 21 March 2009 (Removed POV and "Factual accuracy" tags: Restored tags). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

--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.