Talk:Mitchell Brothers O'Farrell Theatre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject California This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article is within the scope of the San Francisco Bay Area WikiProject, a collaborative effort to build a more detailed guide on Wikipedia's coverage of San Francisco and the Bay Area. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on July 19, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.


I just removed a section about coerced prostitution and the following text:

"Former prostitute/exotic dancer activist Daisy Anarchy is currently pursuing legislation to ban private rooms as they have been linked to pimping, sexual assault, and to an unhygenic environment that exposes dancers to disease. http://www.sfgov.org/site/cosw_page.asp?id=42294"

I removed it because it is promoting a cause and an activitst, which should be mentioned elsewhere. I also removed it because it mentioned "coerced" prostitution, which is patently false. The women who work at the O'Farrell work there because it is both safer and more luctrative to turn tricks in the club than independently or in other SF clubs. They also proposition the customers rather aggressively. It is virtually impossible to go into that club and watch a woman dance without being groped or propositioned after she dances.

Contents

[edit] Merge/AfD discussion

We seem to be going around and around and around with this article. Would someone tell me how to request protection for this thing? In a relatively ancient version of this article, I mentioned that the O'Farrell's general manager, Vince Stanich, had imposed a black-and-white dress code on his staff (including me) in 1986 because the non-managers on the floor dressed cheaply and unstylishly (except me). This dress code (in effect to this day) was a startling move for an establishment of this type, so I added it to this article. A week or so later it had disappeared; the Wiki editor commented, "I removed the irrelevant part about the dress code..." When I contacted the editor, s/he said, "Well, I didn't know it was relevant, so I cut it." Well, if you don't know, don't touch. If I put it back in, will someone just take it back out? George415 03:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)



I disagree with merging of this article. It was much larger before, listing performing rooms. This section was deleted for unclear reason. I will try to restore it. This club is notable by itself, and lot of things can be said about it. And it doesn't have much to do with Mitchell Brothers except its name and ownership. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackAsker (talk • contribs)

Article is way too spam-like in my view, see WP:SPAM. And "name and ownership" is certainly a close connection. The Mitchell Brothers article already says some things about the theater and can be updated. Phr (talk) 10:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I oppose the merge. The theater is something of a San Francisco landmark, and is of independent interest. Also, I've added a lot of historical content and a lot of spam-like content has been removed. Fireplace 14:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the merge. The building itself is a landmark and has been the site of a number of significant events only tangentailly related to the current owners. It will be a challenge to keep this distinction in place and not turn the article into an advertisement for the current strip club, but that's no reason to remove it. I've added a very brief section on the murals along with a reference to further information. This, for example, is useful information which would have no place in the main Mitchel Brithers article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.132.12.133 (talk • contribs) 12:07, July 19, 2006 (UTC)

Why is the stuff about the murals interesting? Phr (talk) 20:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The theater is located on O'Farrell and Polk, right off Van Ness in San Francisco. This is a major intersection on a major street, and the murals are prominent and recognizable. Many people who have driven through SF will recognize them. Fireplace 20:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Shrug. I'd just mention that the building has some murals on the outside that are visible to passing traffic. Lots of SF buildings have murals, it's not that big a deal. Phr (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Phr. I'm probably adding a comment wrong here, sorry, I'm new. While there are lots of murals in SF, the city actually takes them quite seriously. There are mural books, mural tours, even a city-funded organization which paints and repairs them. While a small prpoportion of SF residents have been inside the theater, it's likely than nearly all of them have seen these two large murals, located four blocks from City Hall. Information about the murals seems particularly appropriate here in an article about the theater as a landmark. An article about the Womens' Building, Balmy St, or the elementry school on Shotwell would be ridiculously incomplete if all it said was, "a mural is visible here.". Same with this building.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.132.14.5 (talk • contribs)

Hi 70.132.14.5--there's nothing wrong with how you commented, except please sign your comments with four tilde characters (~~~~). Are you saying the city of SF funds maintenance of the mural on the O'Farrell theater? That is worth mentioning in the article if it can be cited.

The O'Farrell article says they still show movies but their website says zero about it; would someone like to check that out? I have a feeling that the O' stopped showing movies a long time ago.


Yes, I've driven or walked past the theater and seen the building (and murals) many times; one person's landmark is another's eyesore. My basic objection to this article is it's still too promotional, particularly the part about the contents of the different rooms and services. I urge BlackAsker and others to look at the "review your intentions" paragraph of WP:SPAM#How not to be a spammer for guidance in deciding what aspects of the theater to concentrate on in the article. I already removed that section and BlackAsker reverted the removal, and I don't want to get in an edit war, so I want to bring it up here before removing it again. The part about the murals IMO also shouldn't have its own section. The description can be merged into some existing section. I feel that too much emphasis on this stuff constitutes undue weight per Wikipedia policy. As for the murals: I'd never really noticed their content, because of the butt-ugly building they're painted on, and because of the porn marquee that creates visual clutter detracting from the murals.
I'm not against the article's existence (now that there's a reasonable amount of material in it) but we have to remember we're writing an encyclopedia, not a tourist guide. The reference to Wikitravel in one of the edit summaries was about Wikitravel (http://wikitravel.org), a Wiki tourist guide that might or might not be more receptive to a detailed treatment of the theater than the encyclopedia is. They do mention the theater in their article about SF's Tenderloin district (http://wikitravel.org/en/San_Francisco/Tenderloin) but I don't know how they feel about adult entertainment in general. Note that because of license incompatibility, it's not permitted to copy text back and forth between Wikipedia and Wikitravel, unless it's text that you wrote yourself, or if the author gave permission (such as through multi-licensing). Phr (talk) 07:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it's pretty clear that the individual rooms section is spam-like and UE. I deleted it and said instead that there are multiple showrooms. Also removing the merge tag as no one is advocating the merge anymore. As for the murals, as an ex-SF resident, I think they're notable enough to have their own section (I don't think undue weight applies here, because this isn't a majority/minority view situation). Fireplace 14:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up the showrooms stuff. I wonder if you have an idea how to NPOV the stuff about the theater being a popular tourist attraction. Here is what Wikitravel says:
  • Mitchell Brothers O'Farrell Theater, 895 O'Farrell. Tourists have flocked here for live, nude girls and dirty movies since 1971, when porn star Marilyn Chambers followed her performance in a Mitchell Brothers' film by becoming an Ivory Snow model. The venue is large, clean, and the biggest rip-off in adult entertainment this side of Paris. $40 gets you in the door, and the girls demand large tips for anything more. Avoid this over-priced, over-hyped tourist trap for the Crazy Horse on Market (next to the Warfield) or any of the clubs on Broadway in North Beach.
-- Phr (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Could you please clarify why room section is a spam? This is just another detail about the theater. Ho is it worse than murals section? BlackAsker 17:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The murals are unique, are arguably of quasi-landmark status, and are of historical interest. The rooms inside the club seem to fail all those criteria, and generally read like an advertisement. Fireplace 17:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, this is just another detail about the club. I am not affiliated with it and do not place advertisement ever. You are dropping the details just because this is a commercial enterprise and your 'ad' argument applies. BlackAsker 06:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Why does it matter to you whether it is there or not? Phr (talk) 07:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prostitution at the Mitchell Brothers O'Farrell Theatre

Right now, in the city of San Francisco, the Mitchell Brothers O'Farrell Theatre (MBOT, for short) is the only club that allows prostitution. In 2004, there were 3 clubs: New Century Theater, Market Street Cinema, and the Mitchell Brothers O'Farrell Theatre. After the police raided the first 2 clubs, they shutdown prostitution, and many dancers who sold prostitution services simply quit. However, prostitution continues at the Mitchell Brothers O'Farell Theatre.

Simply calling the MBOT a strip-club is inaccurate. It is a brothel that has the blessing of the city of San Francisco.

MBOT switched from being a pure strip-club to being a brothel around the year 2000. None of the prostitution is coerced. It is voluntary. The prostitutes aggressively seek to sell prostitution services in order to earn (typically) more than $100,000 per year.

Atheist2007 02:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Please note: I've removed your recent edits from the article, since you do not seem to provide verifiable, reliable sources for any of these assertions. Please read the policies on verifiability and reliable sources. -- The Anome 02:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)



For reference, below is what I added. The information comes directly from the prostitutes themselves and from direct observation of the club. How does one provide a verifiable, reliable source for "The customers can obtain a free O'Farrell-branded condom at the front desk."? The condoms are there -- on the desk -- for everyone to see.


These days, the authorities seem not to mind what happens between dancers and customers at only the Mitchell Brothers O'Farrell Theatre. In 2004, the police raided both the New Century Theater and the Market Street Cinema due to the prostitution occurring at both establishments. However, even though prostitution is rampant at O'Farrell Theatre, the police refused to interfere with it. Subsequently, the management at both the New Century Theater and the Market Street Cinema terminated all prostitution at both clubs. Of course, prostitution continues at a torrid pace at the O'Farrell Theatre.


The management of the O'Farrell Theatre will fire prostitutes who, concurrent with their employment at the O'Farrell Theatre, also work at other clubs (which do not allow prostitution) in the city. In 2005, several prostitutes worked at both the O'Farrell Theatre and the Crazy Horse Gentleman's Club. According to the prostitutes, the management of the O'Farrell Theatre allegedly pressured the prostitutes to quit the Crazy Horse Gentleman's Club.


The O'Farrell Theatre advertises itself frequently in the "San Francisco Chronicle". Unofficial advertising occurs via myRedbook, a web site devoted to helping customers to hook up with prostitutes working in San Francisco and across the country. myRedbook maintains schedules of the prostitutes working at the O'Farrell Threatre and also maintains some pictures of the prostitutes.


Working at the O'Farrell Theatre is a very lucrative experience: most prostitutes can earn between $100,000 and $300,000, which is either (1) not reported or (2) under-reported to the Internal Revenue Service. The financial transactions (in the form of tips) between prostitutes and customers are usually conducted in cash and are impossible to trace.


----


The prostitutes at the O'Farrell Theatre provide 3 basis services (for the male customers): hand job, blow job, and full service. During a hand job, the prostitute uses her hand to stimulate the penis. During a blow job, the prostitute uses her mouth to stimulate the penis. During full service, the prostitute offers full sexual intercourse.


Depending on the attractiveness of the prostitute, the price of a hand job ranges from $40 to $140. The price of a blow job ranges from $60 to $210. The price of full service ranges from $100 to $350. Since most prostitutes at the O'Farrell Theatre are quite average in looks, the prices for a hand job, blow job, and full service are typically $80, $120, and $200, respectively.


The customers can obtain a free O'Farrell-branded condom at the front desk. Most customers use condoms, but a few avoid them. The customers come in a great variety: actors, politicians, drug dealers, members of violent gangs, rich guys with polo shirts, etc.


The Green Door rooms are generally the best places for full service. For several years until the middle of 2006, the O'Farrell Theatre installed small beds in the Green Door rooms in order to give the customer the most comfortable full-sexual-intercourse experience.


----


As of 2006, a class-action lawsuit by dancers who worked at the O'Farrell Theatre just prior to its transformation into a full-blown brothel is still pending.


Atheist2007 05:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


I suggest removing the section "Prostitution". Websites like Myredbook aren't the proper source and aren't clear about this. Also few references like #2 from SF Chronicle don't even mention O'Farrell. Therefore they are irrelevant and I am going to delete them. Edits my Atheist2007 aren't informative, but rather judgemental and agenda-driven. BlackAsker. 20:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


The "San Francisco Chronicle" reference specifically indicates that myRedbook sells prostitution. The myRedbook web site specifically advertises prostitution at the Mitchell Brothers O'Farrell Theatre. The web site includes (1) a discussion forum where customers discuss their enjoyment of prostitution services at the O'Farrell Theatre, (2) a section of reviews of the prostitutes working at the O'Farrell Theatre, and (3) a section showing the schedule and the pictures of prostitutes working at the O'Farrell Theatre. Where is the judgement? I am presenting the facts. Anyone can see the facts by clicking on myRedbook web-site link. Also, the "San Francisco Examiner" reference specifically mentions that an employee at the Market Street Cinema asked the police to scrutinize the prostitution at the Mitchell Brothers O'Farrell Theatre. Both the "San Francisco Chronicle" and the "San Francisco Examiner" are solid references. Atheist2007 07:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

What is judgmental is the claim that the O'Farrell Theatre has the "prettiest nude dancers". That claim is a judgment call made by BlackAsher. I will now delete that claim since it is not backed by any reference. BlackAsher clearly has an agenda. Atheist2007 07:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


"San Francisco Chronicle" article is highly opinionated and political in nature. Ita makes many false clames. For example: that workers in the sex-parlors are slaves. Nobody is a slave and everyon is free any time. Also it does not mention O'Farrell Theater, only myredbook site. And this site is not a reference for WikiPedia article. If prostitution was involved law enforcement would have closed O'Farrell Theater and prosecuted individuals involved. Nether you nor WikiPedia can make a statement that prostitution is going on in the Theater. Therefore I am eleting this paragraph. If you have that opinion please find some other place to express it. WikiPedia is not the place for political debates. BlackAsker BlackAsker 23:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


By the standards of Wikipedia, the "San Francisco Chronicle" (SFC) is a credible source. So is the "San Francisco Examiner" (SFE). The SFC states, clearly, that myRedbook is a web-site facilitating sex trafficking. myRedbook does, indeed, help to sell the prostitution services at the Mitchell Brothers O'Farrell Theatre. I have provided links to the actual myRedbook web page that shows (1) a discussion forum where customers discuss their enjoyment of prostitution services at the O'Farrell Theatre, (2) a section of reviews of the prostitutes working at the O'Farrell Theatre, and (3) a section showing the schedule and the pictures of prostitutes working at the O'Farrell Theatre. Atheist2007 05:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, the SFE does indeed report that an employee at the Market Street Cinema asked the police to scrutinize the prostitution at the Mitchell Brothers O'Farrell Theatre. Both the "San Francisco Chronicle" and the "San Francisco Examiner" are solid references. Atheist2007 05:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The facts about the Market Street Cinema raid and the statement of the employee there are indeed verifiable and have been incorporated. All charges in those cases have been dropped, and that is also correctly reported. Then you want to insert a statement about a website, one among many which discuss the O'Farrell. The website is not relevant, and since it is a forum it cannot be used as a source to support your claim that the theatre is a brothel.AxelBoldt 17:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I also removed the disputed-tag, since I don't see anyone disputing any facts in the article.AxelBoldt 19:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If you have any verifiable information about the pending class-action lawsuit you mention above, please add. AxelBoldt 19:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

SFC reports that myRedbook is at the center of a sex trafficking scandal. Noting this fact is important. myRedbook is not an ordinary site. myRedbook facilitates the sale of prostitution services at the O'Farrell Theatre. Noting this fact is also important. myRedbook provides a forum, information about the schedule of the prostitutes, reviews of the sex services received from the prostitutes, and even pictures of the prostitutes who work at the O'Farrell Theatre. Noting this information is fair and appropriate. The added information about myRedbook does not state directly that the Theatre is a brothel although the Theatre is, indeed, brothel. The added information simply indicates what myRedbook states about the Theatre.Atheist2007 23:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The information in the rest of the article is disputed.Atheist2007 23:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm George415, who wrote 75% of this article. I worked at the O'Farrell during my college days and have read both Mitchell bios, so I feel competent to be the article's chief architect. I requested protection for it because I got tired of expanding the article, then having others delete my work by saying things like, "I cut parts because I didn't see that they were relevant." Such people obviously know little about strip clubs or porn in general. I'm proud of my work on this article and want it to stay protected indefinitely. All that prostitution stuff Atheist2007 keeps putting is completely unfounded. The O'Farrell is licenses as a nightclub and nothing else; if certain women working there do illegal things, they weren't told to do so by the theater's management. Atheist2007 was just expressing a personal opinion and passing it off as fact. (BTW, the O' is a relatively low-paying workplace at $7/hour; call and ask if you are skeptical.)

George, the article's not going to be protected forever. That's kinda against our whole philosophy. I did not protect on a particular version as an endorsement of that version, it was just what was up at the time. I protected to attempt to bring both sides to the talk page and build a compromise, which seems to have failed, with Atheist ignoring this page. For more information, read our Protection policy. If the edit warring resumes upon unprotection, I'll protect again, and file a request for comment, to attempt to bring others with opinions here to come to a consensus. That's the next step in our process for resolving disputes.
Additionally, just because you worked for an establishment doesn't give you the right to determine what information should be in its Wikipedia article. Our policy on control of article is at Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. We've had to block the U.S. Congress from editing due to trying to control the content of articles, a strip club in the Tenderloin can't really expect more favorable treatment.
Finally, in the future, you can sign your comments on talk pages by using four tildes, like this ~~~~, which includes a link to your user page and a time stamp. For just a link, use three tildes, for just a time stamp use five. Gentgeen 20:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit wars are bad

OK, the edit warring is bad. Both sides are reverting right up to the WP:3RR limit daily. Let's sit down and try to come up with a compromise, or I may be forced to protect the article from further editing. Now, sit down and talk like adults. Gentgeen 09:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, we've had another round and a half of revert waring, without a single post to this discussion page, since my statement above. This can't continue forever. If, when I return tomorrow, no work towards a resolution has been made, I will protect this page on whatever version is up at the time. Gentgeen 19:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Not only did you all ignore my request for sanity and compromise to build an article that everyone could agree on, you started violating the WP:3RR. This page is protected for the next week. Please try to come to a compromise on its content in that time by discussing the page here. Also, be thankful that I didn't start blocking the editors for violation of the three revert rule. Next time I won't be so nice. Gentgeen 21:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm the one who requested protection for this article and am glad there's a lock on it. That myRedbook plug was really getting on my nerves. I am also the one who wrote 75% of this article; I worked at the O'Farrell during my college days and, after reading what little had been written at Wiki about it, decided to help out. It seemed, however, that so many others were undoing my handiwork and saying, "I cut this or that because I didn't see that it was relevant." Ugh. I also got really peeved when someone came back to this page and reinserted, "Hunter Thompson was the O'Farrell's night manager," which he certainly was not. (What an insult to the real night manager, to claim that a reporter could just step in and do his job!) Maybe the best thing would be just to leave this article protected.

[edit] Thompson night manager discussion

Hunter S Thompson himself states that he was night manager in the book 'kingdom of fear'. Surely this attributable source trumps your anonymous claim to the contrary. Do you have any evidence to back-up your claim? 82.69.168.181 11:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if HST said it, it must have been true, right? LOL. While in college, I worked at the O'Farrell (I think I've already said this a few times) and was acquainted with HST. He...was...not...the...night...manager. As I said above, he couldn't have done it because he wasn't trained to do the job. It went real nice with his image to claim to be the night manager, but, no, it was just some hype. Even Herb Caen reported in his column that HST was running the O', and we all got a big laugh out of Caen's mistake. George415 20:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, great, so what source can we use for your claim besides your original research reported here? AxelBoldt 15:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

What I gave you should be sufficient. Just thank me for making the article as good as it is.George415 18:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

What did you give me? Any citable reference? AxelBoldt 20:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)