Talk:Ronald Weitzer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Regarding recent edits by User:68.34.57.97[edit]

I've reverted a number of edits by the above anonymous user, as they largely violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. These edits have NPOV problems insofar as the language is clearly slanted toward advocacy rather than simple description of Weitzer's views. Also, these additions are entirely unreferenced and much of it comes across as original research rather than a summary of Weitzer's published work. I've eliminated this section in particular:

"He does not advocate, however, formal decriminalization in the U.S., which he considers impractical in this country. Nor does he argue in favor of universal non-enforcement against indoor prostitution establishments. Police should remain involved in enforcing the law when a complaint has been made by a community member and when there is evidence of force or fraud in the recruitment of indoor workers. But non-enforcement is considered an appropriate use of scarce government resources in indoor venues that do not pose a problem for the community or for the workers. Those resources should be transferred to the control of street-level prostitution. Although Weitzer has been called an advocate of "legalization" or "decriminalization" by some writers, his evidence-based conclusions are much more nuanced and context-specific than what these general terms suggest."

I have several of Weitzer's paper's on prostitution policy in front of me, and I can't find anything stating that the above is, in fact, his approach to enforcement of laws regarding indoor prostitution.

Where possible, I've tried to reincorporate material added by 68.34.57.97 insofar as I could find an actual references to back up such statements, such as I did with Weitzer's statements about the harm reduction principle.

Also, the deletion of all links and references to Melissa Farley is uncalled for and rather POV. The "See also" link to Melissa Farley is put here as a placeholder until material on Weitzer's arguments with Farley can be incorporated into the article. The removal of the Farley articles under "Debates between Weitzer and others" basically leaves only Weitzer's side of the debate, and removes the opposing side. That this is hugely POV and, frankly, a bit petty should go without saying.

All of this must be looked at in light of the debates taking place over on Talk:Melissa Farley. The way to approach these issues and the actors involved is to neutrally describe all points of view, both those of the subject and the subject's critics, and not to treat each article as a little "fiefdom" where the views of the subject are favored against the views of critics. This is precisely the approach called for in WP:NPOV and WP:CONTROVERSY. Iamcuriousblue 19:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

To Iamcuriousblue: Weitzer does indeed make the points described in the paragraph you deleted, and Weitzer himself added this. Please reinsert the paragraph back into the article. The reference, where these policy proposals are clearly spelled out is Ronald Weitzer, "Prostitution Control In America: Rethinking Public Policy," CRIME, LAW, AND SOCIAL CHANGE, vol.32, no. 1 (1999): 83-102. Please stop deleting material Weitzer has added to his own Wikipedia entry!! Weitzer wrote most almost all of this entry, and it is disturbing that you are making deletions to what he has written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.57.97 (talk) 06:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph that you deleted is clearly Weitzer's position, well-documented in his book Legalizing Prostitution (2012). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjw99 (talkcontribs) 13:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The Weitzer-Farley dispute[edit]

This applies to both articles. Maybe we should just stick to the facts. Farley is representative of the radical feminist abolitionist/prohibitionist view point on prostitution exemplified by CATW, Weitzer is representative of the more liberal discourse. By my counting liberal academics who do research on sex work vastly outnumber the CATW ones, but both are entitled to their views. Weitzer is particularly noted for his work on sociological methodology in this field. Sex work is extraordinarily emotive and people editing these articles should recognise that. Perhaps the details of the debates should go into a separate article on ideology rather in biographies. We should also distinguish between empirical research and opinions. Mgoodyear 23:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the article do stick with the facts, in that they report on controversies and differences between these researchers. I think that biographical articles on researchers are naturally going to report on the substance of that persons research, and when that person's claims are controversial, WP:NPOV and WP:CONTROVERSY demand that that criticisms of that person's research claims be addressed. The article on Bjørn Lomborg is a good example of this, though in my opinion, too heavily weighted to the views of critics relative to exposition of Lomborg's views. In any event, the article on Melissa Farley is going to Mediation Committee. Once that case is active, I'll try and add this article to the case as well, since whatever is agreed to concerning Farley's article should apply here as well. I want the treatment of both abolitionists and liberals to be even-handed, whatever the outcome. Iamcuriousblue 01:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
For clarification I am saying that Weitzer's conclusions from his research are perfectly consistent with a large body of writing on the subject in the academic field, and the same could be said for Farley, neither are particularly extraordinary in their views. Mgoodyear 03:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
However, they are probably the individuals most frequently cited as "experts" on each side of the issue by the news media, and each has published important academic works on this issue, hence, I think they are particularly important in this regard. Iamcuriousblue 17:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like this article on Weitzer to focus on Weitzer's research and conclusions, and not to be side-tracked on Farley or others. This is why I edited out some of the tangents on Farley. She has her own Wiki entry. Please allow the Weitzer entry to stand alone. By continually mentioning Farley in the Weitzer entry, which is very much a side issue, you detract from the integrity and distinctiveness of what is written about Weitzer. And, I strongly contest including the Weitzer article in the mediation case regarding Farley. Again, you are drawing connections between the two authors that are unwarranted, and assuming that since Farley is contested, the same should be the case for Weitzer. Finally, it is incorrect to describe Weitzer as a "liberal" on this issue. I dont know what that means. He is a social scientist and a criminologist, and his view is best described as evidence-based. You can certainly find other writers such as Carol Leigh and others who favor total decriminalization to pit against Farley (they are all activists), rather than implying that Farley and Weitzer are in the same ballpark and that their entries are inextricably linked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.57.97 (talk) 06:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think since the two had a high profile debate in the journal Violence Against Women that the two are linked and that it is necessary, in both articles, to include the criticisms of each subject, as per WP:NPOV and WP:CONTROVERSY. As for Farley being an "activist", that's true, however, she and her supporters would also be quick to point out that she is also a social scientist who has conducted research on prostitution. (The quality of this research is subject to debate, which is why I've noted Weitzer's criticisms of Farley in the article on Farley.)
And frankly, I find that there's more than a little bit of POV-pushing from editors that are clearly supporters of Farley and an editor that is clearly a supporter of Weitzer. 68.34.57.97, I really suggest you go to the "Welcome" page and read the basic guidelines of Wikipedia, because I don't think you're following them, and are probably not aware of them. Adhering to a neutral point of view, is absolutely essential, whereas many of your edits clearly cross the line into advocacy. Also, proper citation of verifiable references and avoidance of original research is critical – so far your additions have not cited any sources – you make claims that Weitzer is not entirely pro-decriminalization, even on the issue of indoor prostitution, yet you do not give any kind of reference to Weitzer's writings which would indicate that those are, in fact, his views. I've simply based what I've written on what Weitzer has stated in published sources.
I'll note that the Melissa Farley article is going into Mediation Committee right now and I see many of the same issues popping up here, for related reasons. I think including this article in that mediation would not be uncalled for. The mediation case is here: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Melissa Farley – if you'd like to add this under "Additional issues to be mediated" and "Articles involved", please do.
Iamcuriousblue 16:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Major publications[edit]

I reverted the additions to Major publications as per WP:IINFO. Posting of large lists of publications, full CVs, etc, goes against Wikipedia guidelines, which was the reason that the publications list was pared down to begin with. I kept the list of books, however, for journal articles, I cut the list back. This was done in a methodical way – I used a Web of Science search to find what Weitzer's most cited articles were, then included the most cited articles for each of his two major subject areas. (The two anthology articles were examined using a "Google test" to see if they obtained a comparable number of "hits" to his most cited articles.) I also added, on recent article, ""The Social Construction of Sex Trafficking", feeling that even though this was too new to have accumulated much citation, the work was clearly his fullest statement about the moral panic around trafficking.

Articles that didn't make this cut, but nevertheless had free public links to them were moved down to "External links" (where several other articles were added).

Hopefully, this should explain why the publications list and list of external links took the shape that it did. Iamcuriousblue 18:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)