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)