Talk:Donna M. Hughes

"Expand" tag

I put up an "expand" tag based on the fact that this article has very little material on Hughes biography or academic work, but a great deal on controversies she's been involved in over the last two years. This creates a problem with undue weight in this article. The solution is not to get rid of this material, as it is notable and verifiable, but rather start adding the needed biographical and academic summary info. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 04:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I also would like to note that the editorials written by Hughes should be included in the article. Editorials written in direct response to Hughes should also be included, but a 3rd person editorial should not be included because it has no bearing on the article. As for my recent edits, I have tried to clean up the layout a little and fix some referencesYou Can't Clap with One Hand (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The part about Donna Hughes leaving RICAHT is the truth. It was actually part of the About page on the CAT website, but has since been changed. I do not know how to find past versions of a webpage as of now, but I have found one site that references the page. You can see it here. http://happyendingsdoc.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/fight-of-the-coalitions/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by GiselleRI (talk • contribs) 12:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

As is so often said when it comes to matters of this kind on Wikipedia, it doesn't matter if its *the truth*, it matters if its a verifiable part of the public record. Wikipedia simply doesn't report novel information and original research. If there is verifiable information on the RICAHT/CAT relationship from a journalistic or academic source, or, alternately, from one of the organizations themselves, then by all means, lets put that information back. The Happy Endings blog, like most blogs, does not rise up to the level of WP:VERIFY, particularly when it comes to disputed information about a living person. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 23:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit war (?)

I've taken the step of reverting several large-scale removals of content by User:EconProfessor. These seem to be wholesale removal of sourced content that may be viewed as critical to Donna Hughes. I feel this is frankly being done for POV reasons. I am sensitive to POV concerns and would like this article to remain NPOV, while at the same time, not shying away from controversies Hughes may have been involved in.

I also need to bring up the issue of conflict of interest. I strongly suspect User:EconProfessor to be an academic ally, maybe even co-author on Donna M. Hughes writings, and I think EconProfessor needs to be open about this if this is in fact the case. Others who have edited here may include individuals personally attacked by Hughes, and that also needs to clarified. All of these present conflict of interest issues and great caution needs to be exercised in just what these individuals contribute to this article. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

__________________________________________

The Donna M. Hughes BLP is not currently NPOV. The people who have constructed this page oppose her work or views. I am attempting to make this page NPOV. That requires removing a number of unsourced statements and false allegations about Professor Donna Hughes, and correcting factual errors.

I am not engaging in the wholesale removal of content. I am reviewing individual statements, one at a time, to be sure the information is correct and documented according to Wikipedia policies. This is important work because it is a BLP.

For example, the statement regarding the content of footnote 13 is incorrect. The Wikipedia description says “Several Rhode Island State Senators wrote editorials disputing Hughes claim that they had kept indoor prostitution legal...” However, if you read the June 25 article in footnote 13, there is absolutely no mention of Professor Hughes. It merely describes the passage of the Senate bill and so therefore it does not belong on Professor Hughes' page. The associated incorrect statement about the content of this editorial needs to be removed as well. Also, the Levesque editorial in footnote 14 is an opinion piece and not a factual reliable news source. If it ends up remaining, then other editorials that were written in support of Professor Hughes’s position need to be included too. Professor Hughes’ page is not NPOV if only editorials that disagree with her position are allowed to be posted. Balance requires both sides be told, or neither.

The bio statement that Professor Hughes was raised on a farm is unsourced. Either a link to a reliable source for this information should be provided, or the statement should be deleted.

The entire discussion regarding the CSPH and its zoning approval process should be removed from Professor Hughes' page. The CSPH is not related to prostitution legislation in Rhode Island, and furthermore there are no facts or sources to support the accusation on this page that Professor Hughes caused the delay in the opening of the Center. Multiple news sources indicate that the reason Ms. Andelloux was initially turned down from opening her center was because the building was not zoned for educational uses. When Ms. Andelloux applied for a special-use permit several months later, the Zoning Board approved her application. These are the documented facts regarding the CSPH zoning process. All negative insinuations and speculations against Professor Hughes should be removed. The discussions about any Pawtucket zoning hurdles Ms. Andelloux may have faced in opening her center should be confined to Andelloux’s own Wikipedia page, with verifiable sources.

I choose to write under an anonymous username and that is my right. I object to your insinuations and speculative attempt to expose my identity. Wikipedia conflict of interest is explained as follows: "You are strongly discouraged from writing articles about yourself or organisations (including their campaigns, clients, products and services) in which you hold a vested interest." The Donna M. Hughes Wikipedia article is about a living person, not an organization. In addition, an example of a vested interest would be if an editor tried to promote her for-profit DVD on other people’s Wikipedia pages. I can assure you I am not promoting any commercial products or services. Also I can tell you I am not Donna Hughes. Whether I know or have worked with Donna Hughes is irrelevant. Wikipedia editors write about what they know; it would be a pretty bad encyclopedia if editors could only write about topics or people they do not know.

I do not wish to engage in an edit war with you or anyone else, but I will speak up for the truth. If you are serious about improving and expanding this article, then you should welcome my contributions.EconProfessor (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

First off, I'll ask you right off. Are you Margaret Brooks? Because if so, the fact that Brooks is part of Citizens Against Trafficking and a close collaborator with Hughes does present a serious conflict of interest. (If you are not Margaret Brooks, my apologies.) Your contention that conflict of interest is restricted to commercial products is erroneous, and I'm surprised you'd make such a silly argument. There are is clearly a such thing as political and organizational conflicts of interest, and this is most certainly covered under WP:COI.

Second, it is pretty clear that you are not reading footnotes carefully. The part about Hughes growing up on a farm is sourced along with the rest of the paragraph, with the footnote at the end of the paragraph. In fact it is sourced to Donna Hughes own writing. (And why this should present any kind of NPOV issue is beyond me. Is there anything wrong with growing up on a farm?)

Finally, the part on the CSPH controversy is absolutely relevant and should stay. Hughes absolutely involved herself when she sent out the email in question, as well as when she made statements about Andelloux made on the CAT website and to the press. If you attempt to wholesale remove this, either I or one of the other editors involved with editing this article will revert you. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and you also mention editorials in support specifically of Donna Hughes and/or Citizens Against Trafficking. Could you provide some links? I will make a point of including that information if you can point it out. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I just had a look at the Levesque editorial. You're interpretation is simply wrong. When a State Senator calls somebody out by name in an editorial in a metropolitan daily, that most certainly is notable. I don't know where you get the idea that editorials cannot be used as a source. They can if they are reported as someone's opinion. And certainly if Hughes ever rebutted, either in a newspaper or one of her websites, let me know, because I will certainly make sure that's included as well. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 03:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced?

This is at least the second time I've seen User:EconProfessor challenge or remove sourced content under the erroneous contention that the material is "unsourced". Unfortunately, it seems this editor does not seem to recognize that a reference might be found at the end of several sentences or even at the end of a paragraph. If there is clear reason to believe the reference does not in fact support the statement, or that its a source that clearly does not rise to WP:VERIFY, then by all means, challenge it as unsourced. But flagrantly ignoring references and claiming lack of sources as reason for removal is not a sign of good faith.

BTW, if there are sources where Hughes has rebutted the claims made by Andelloux and her supporters (even on a personal page of hers), please add this or let me know about the source, because that material should also be included in the article. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 19:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

POV edits

It seems that the above #Edit war (?) involving User:EconProfessor isn't ending. Moreover, User:EconProfessor is now removing sourced content wholesale without discussion. This is simply the latest example of POV editing I've observed on this article, as I've been watching and researching it, but avoiding controversial edits myself. I'm concerned that User:EconProfessor has a conflict of interest and isn't being upfront about it.

In any event, I'd like to offer whatever knowledge and sources I can to help avoid more POV edits in the future. To that end, I'll be carefully editing this article, mostly for reference clarity. I'd also appreciate help from other Wikipedians with regards to vetting some of the references, possibly adding them to the article after I suggest them, here.

On that note, after carefully re-reading several of the existing sources, I was able to find more evidence of Donna M. Hughes' involvement in the controversy in question. First, Female Sexologist Awaits Pawtucket Zoning Board, a reference from the Megan Andelloux article, mentions Donna M. Hughes' involvement by name, but I don't see that source referenced from this article. I think it should be added. Second, I found another publication not mentioned on either article that is entirely about Donna M. Hughes' personal attacks against Ms. Andelloux when Ms. Hughes went on the radio to discuss the controversy herself.

Donna M. Hughes's involvement in this controversy is well-documented and I believe it should stay in this article. I'd be grateful if more Wikipedians could help monitor User:EconProfessor's POV edits. Thank you. --Meitar (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Yet. Again. I'd appreciate it if someone reverted these edits back to this version immediately. User:EconProfessor needs to discuss these edits or simply stop editing. This is tiresome. --Meitar (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Once again, User:EconProfessor has insisted on wholesale removal of sourced content because it apparently conflicts with her opinion of Donna Hughes. EconProf summarizes the edit as follows:

"Removed paragraph that violates NOR, POV. False speculation that email was related to prostitution hearings & was cause of CSPH delay. Sources show CSPH delay was caused by zoning & licensing probs."

Sorry, but just because it may reflect negatively on Donna Hughes does not in itself make mention of the incident POV. The sourced articles clearly state that negative attention was brought to Megan Andelloux and the CSPH through the efforts of Donna Hughes. A zoning battle over the CSPH immediately followed, and the zoning issues may or may not have had their own merits. The degree to which Donna Hughes emails and negative publicity played a role is a matter of argument, and I have be quite careful to preface the statement with "Supporters of Andelloux claim..." If there is a way of perhaps rewording the language of the paragraph or introducing more sources to move this paragraph toward one which EconProf feels is more NPOV, I'm open to it. However, I will continue to revert wholesale removal of this paragraph.

I will also note that User:EconProfessor is no longer even discussing edits or contributing positively to the article, but simply reverting content that offends them. User:EconProfessor has not addressed the question as to whether this editor is, in fact, Margaret Brooks of Citizens Against Trafficking and co-author of several of the bulletins mentioned and cited in the paragraph EconProf insists on removing. Unless I learn otherwise, I'm going to be forced to assume that this is the case and that the removal of this content represents astroturfing by Citizens Against Trafficking. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 23:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting User:EconProfessor's POV edits, User:Iamcuriousblue. That said, I want to clarify something: "The degree to which Donna Hughes emails and negative publicity played a role" in the Megan Andelloux#Controversy over The Center for Sexual Pleasure and Health is not a matter of argument. That's why it belongs in this article. Donna M. Hughes is referenced by name in multiple reliable sources as the instigator of that controversy and it is her role as the instigator that's referenced in both this article and the other. The only issue "open to argument" on this matter is Donna M. Hughes' own motivations, which, by the way, also happen to be a matter of public record as reported by even more reliable sources (see the plethora of references). While I'm amenable to the notion of rewording content in any of these articles towards NPOV phraseology, I feel it's important to be clear about the facts of the controversy, and especially how it started and by whom since the issue is not insignificant. --Meitar (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I have placed another warning on User:EconProfessor's page. It is the 3rd warning s/he has gotten. The fact that s/he is now removing content and not responding in the talk page or even leaving reasons for the edits, I think that at some point someone will have to nominate for blocking.You Can't Clap With One Hand ^(Talk) 00:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

____________________________________________

As I explained before, I am attempting to verify all sources for statements made on the Donna M. Hughes page, which was largely created by Iamcuriousblue. In my opinion, it is currently not NPOV and there are a number of unsourced statements. This a BLP and the accuracy of statements is critical. I have been civil and polite. I've given specific reasons for every edit I've made. I have already addressed the COI issue, and I object to the continued personal attacks that seem to be directed at me on this Talk page.

In addition, I do not agree with the "warning" GiselleRI sent me today, and with the threat she is making here of blocking me from making future edits. I gave an in-line explanation when I removed the reference to the Happy Endings DVD today. In fact, it was Iamcuriousblue who first pointed out the Happy Endings DVD does not belong on the Donna M. Hughes page. He was the first one to remove that sentence/link yesterday, and GiselleRI reverted his edit, as well as mine.

Using "Supporters claim" to launch into an unsourced attack on a person is unacceptable, especially on a BLP page. And to my knowledge, not one reliable source has described Donna M. Hughes as an "instigator." This is untrue and unsourced speculation.EconProfessor (talk) 01:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Two things. First, I find your use of the word "attack" out of proportion for the edits in question. Further, note that the articles don't use the word "instigator," as its first use was by me, above, in this conversation. You'll no doubt realize that's one reason why I'm not making controversial edits on this article. You, however, are continuing to do so. Moreover, as has been verified numerous times now, Donna M. Hughes' involvement in the controversy in question is well sourced. If you have objections to the phrasing of the article, you are welcome to suggest alternatives, but not to remove sourced content repeatedly while incorrectly claiming that it is unsourced. The fact that this seems unreasonable to you is part of why I am so suspicious of your potential conflict of interest.

For what it's worth, I agree with User:GiselleRI that blocking User:EconProfessor's future edits may be necessary if this incivility continues. --Meitar (talk) 02:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

EconProfessor - First, I thank you for your earlier criticisms of the article. I think your challenges and the resulting rewrites have made this a stronger article.

However, and I'm sorry if you take it as a personal attack, but I have every reason to believe that you are Margaret Brooks (Economics Professor at Bridgewater State University) of Citizens Against Trafficking and co-author of several of the bulletins mentioned and referenced in the paragraph in question. If this is the case, and I believe it is, then there is a serious WP:COI (conflict of interest) issue with your edits and I have no intention of letting go of that fact. You need to address this.

Next, I have provided *multiple* sources for Hughes involvement with the CSPH affair, including several authored by Hughes (and co-authored by you). The sources I cite make a clear case that whatever the merits or lack thereof of the latter zoning issues with CSPH, the scrutiny was instigated by Hughes actions. That would make a case for including the material even without the "Supporters of Andelloux claim..." preface, but I am airing on the side of caution here. That supporters of Andelloux are in fact claiming this (and doing so not just on blogs but in news sources that rise to the level of WP:VERIFY) is beyond argument.

I am open to suggestions as to whether the current phrasing of the paragraph is balanced or whether there are other sources meeting WP:VERIFY that I have overlooked. However, I am not at all open to simply getting rid of the paragraph just because Citizens Against Trafficking is upset over what has been reported in the press concerning Hughes and doesn't want this information repeated. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 03:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

____________________________

Iamcuriousblue: I appreciate your acknowledgement that contributions made by EconProfessor have helped to improve this page. Thank you.

I have stated several times that I do not have a COI, and that I do not wish to identify myself by real name. I ask that the editors on this page respect my stated position and accept that I am making edits in good faith. As you know, many Wikipedia editors choose to write under anonymous usernames. Suspicions and accusations that are directed at me personally tend to squash meaningful content discussions on the Talk page.

We should move forward and work to improve the content of this page. We may not hold the same points of view as individuals, but our collective goal should be to produce a bio page for Donna M. Hughes that is accurate and presents NPOV.

The discussion on this page regarding the Happy Endings DVD seems to be completed. I feel we should now go ahead and remove it.

I will review the paragraph in question and see if there are wording changes that can be made to improve it.EconProfessor (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a guideline

I think the article on Mel Gibson#Personal_life can serve as worthwhile template on how to cover an individual who's unfortunate remarks become part of the public record, in the context of a WP:BLP article. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Move Happy Endings? to "Donna M. Hughes#Activism and views" section?

It looks like User:Iamcuriousblue has removed the reference to Happy Endings?, a documentary about prostitution in Rhode Island in which Donna M. Hughes expresses her views about the issue. It seems User:Iamcuriousblue's understanding is that the reference is WP:LINKSPAM but, unless I'm misreading the linkspam guidelines, it doesn't strike me as such. Maybe rather than remove it, it should be moved to the Donna M. Hughes#Activism and views section, where it may make more sense? It seems to me that a filmed interview with Hughes in which she speaks about her views would be a pretty good reference for people looking to hear her views, y'know? --Meitar (talk) 06:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

If you look under Special:Contributions/Iamcuriousblue, and look at my recent edits, you'll see that I removed mention of Happy Endings? from several articles. It clearly had been linkspammed by somebody into the articles on every person or subject the documentary touched on. Hence, my removal. Obviously, I didn't remove it from articles like Tara Hurley or Prostitution in Rhode Island, because there's a non-trivial connection between Happy Endings? and those subjects. (See also Talk:Happy Endings?.)

In terms of this article, does this doc represent either 1) a documentary largely about Hughes, or 2) an appearance by Hughes in substantial national/mainstream media? If not, I'm not sure if mention of the film is warranted.

Please also note that a documentary film or TV program may be used as a reference source just as much as a book or magazine article, so relevant information about Hughes found in the documentary can be used in this article, citing the film as a reference. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 07:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking, IMDb is not considered a reliable source, because it's also a wiki (that is, it can be edited by anyone). In the same way that Wikipedia articles cannot serve as references, IMDb cannot. Iamcuriousblue is correct to point out that the film itself should be the reference. I'm just about to go to bed, so I'd appreciate if someone else could change the reference, because I don't remember how to properly cite films. That fixes, the problem all around, right? That is, it keeps the info, and the source meets WP:RS...Qwyrxian (talk) 14:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

My issue isn't with IMDB as a reference, because there are certainly other references to show that these people appear in the film. In fact, even the film itself could be used as reference in that regard. My question is, is the mere fact that somebody appears in a documentary reason to mention that in their bio? It seems like there's certain criteria for either notability of the doc or the degree that its actually about the subject of the article is the relevant question. I certainly wouldn't have an issue if Happy Endings? was being used as a source for other relevant facts or statements about Hughes or the other bios in which it appears. That's different from just a name drop. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to move this discussion to Talk:Happy Endings?, because I think this is relevant to several articles that article is linked to. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)