User talk:EconProfessor

Joanne Gianinni

In general we require reliable Secondary sources to include material. An editorial does not meet this criteria. The other sources you've included are perfect for factual inclusion on legislation, such as bills submitted, i.e. child strippers and cell phone usage while driving. Editorial writings do not qualify as sources as they are points of view.You Can't Clap with One Hand (talk) 02:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read the wikipedia guidelines and I did not see any specfic prohibitions on using quotes from a reliable secondary source newspaper editorials. Individuals should not be prohibited from inclusion in wikipedia simply because of their occupation. EconProfessor EconProfessor (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

editorials are used to push an agenda. Wikipedia is not the place for editorials. Also the film Happy Endings? Is referenced by imdb and the Providence journal, not amazon. Amazon would not be reference material as it is a commercial website. The paragraph about Gianinni does not have any point of viewother than the fact that her strugle to get her bill passed is in a documentary film.--You Can't Clap with One Hand (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The general promotional description of Tara Hurley's Happy Endings DVD should be removed from Rep. Giannini's wikipedia page. Wikipedia is not to be used as a means of marketing products. Giannini had a very minor role as one of many people being interviewed during the film. Please read footnote 3. The Providence Journal film review does not even mention Joanne Giannini. The amazon description is not on Giannini's wikipedia page (and it shouldn't be) but by checking this external reference we can see that this film description does not mention Joanne Giannini either. http://www.amazon.com/Endings-Masage-Parlors-Island-Prositution/dp/B002KBIIPQ/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top Because the film was not specifically about Giannini, there should not be an extensive description of this film and its characters on her wikipedia page. Providence Mayor David Cicilline is another RI official who was interviewed by Hurley during the film, and his wikipedia page experienced the similar inclusion of a Happy Endings promotional description.(The Happy Endings description on his page is shorter than what's on Giannini's page.) Loodog objected on July 30, 2009 "he appears in a film is not an excuse to spam that film into this article." Note that the broader "Prostitution in RI" wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Rhode_Island contains only a short, 19-word film summary about the DVD "a documentary about Asian brothels in Rhode Island during a battle in the state legislature to make prostitution illegal." Hurley actually opposed Giannini's legislation, as shown on this wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tara_Hurley. Hurley wanted to keep prostitution legal in RI and she brought spa workers to the Senate hearings to testify against the prostitution bills. Thus in addition to the spam issue, placing Hurley's movie description on Giannini's site gives undue weight to Hurley's opposing view (i.e. pro-legalized prostitution) and it does so without identifying on the wikipedia page that it's presenting an opposing view. Finally, we must remember that the Happy Endings DVD is an unrated indie film about prostitution. Special care must always be taken with respect to Living Person Biographies. For all these reasons, the description and references to the Happy Endings DVD should be deleted from Rep. Joanne Giannini's page. EconProfessor (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Amazon reference should not be used, but since you mention it, Joanne Giannini is mentioned on Amazon. The IMDB reference does list Gianinni, and that is the in line reference. There is nothing about Hurley in this paragraph, so I wonder why you would bring her up here? Take some time to read over WP:SYNTH, you seem to be jumping to a few conclusions. Not that it matters but I believe that Hurley is not pro-legalization of prostitution, rather she advocated applying Sweden's law on prostitution. You can see that here: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2009/08/19/focus_on_demand_not_the_supply/

In the future, lets take up this discussion on the article's talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GiselleRI (talk • contribs) 16:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current general movie description for Happy Endings does not belong on the Giannini Wikipedia page. My point in referring to the Providence Journal and Amazon film sources on this talk page is to show that Rep. Giannini had a minimal role in the film Happy Endings. I referred to Tara Hurley because she is the Happy Endings film-maker who is identified in the Giannini page footnote links 3 and 4 for the Providence Journal and IMBD. This film's primary focus was about following the lives of Asian spa workers, not about Giannini herself. The DVD presents an opposing view to Giannini's legislation, but the current description on the Giannini Wikipedia page does not indicate this. Here is a quote from Tara Hurley's own Wikipedia page "In addition to working for tougher trafficking laws, Hurley testified before the senate to keep prostitution legal. When testifying, Hurley brought women from the spas to testify against prostitution laws as well." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tara_Hurley Film-maker Hurley clearly was active in trying to keep prostitution legal in RI. This means she held an opposing view to Giannini's legislation, which was intended -- and ultimately did -- criminalize prostitution. If Hurley later changed her mind after the June senate hearings (which was after the movie was made) and decided to support the Swedish model (which criminalizes only johns), then that information could be included on Hurley's wikipedia page, but it's irrelevant for Giannini's page. GiselleRI created Giannini's page on July 31, 2009, the day after Loodog asked her to stop spamming the DVD on Cicilline's page. Then the next day, August 1, GiselleRI posted her Happy Endings DVD summary on the new Wikipedia page she had created for Giannini. These are all just facts. People may draw their own conclusions.

The bottom line is that this DVD about prostitution, made by someone who actively and publically opposed Rep. Giannini's legislative work on prostitution, should not be promoted on Giannini's Wikipedia page. I also feel it is incorrect to describe the DVD as documenting "Two years of her fight to change the prostitution law" when that was not the film's perspective. In addition, the inclusion of this general film description skews the Legislative section too much in the direction of prostitution, and this creates an unbalanced and thus misleading overview of Rep. Giannini's legislative work over the course of her 16 years in office. Finally, this DVD is not a G-rated film. It's about prostitution, it's unrated, and it has strong sexual content. Promoting this DVD on Rep. Giannini's page could be a violation of policies for Living Person Biographies.

Are you willing to delete or significantly edit the paragraph in any way in light of my concerns? I am new to Wikipedia and I thought our discussion on these talk pages was already available to other readers. I would be happy to copy our entire conversation to the article's discussion page. If you insist on continuing to undo the edits I make, I can look into finding out how to ask other editors to assist in resolving our differences. EconProfessor (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have also placed this on the discussion page.

I have edited the paragraph, removed the word struggle and replaced with debate as quoted in the Providence Journal citation. I feel that this is sufficient. As for your concerns, I think you are drawing conclusions about Hurley's point of view. If you read the entire wiki page on Tara Hurley you will also see "Before making Happy Endings?, Hurley says she had no preconceived notions on prostitution, and wanted to make the film to find out how she felt as a woman and a feminist about prostitution. In one interview Hurley states "I couldn’t force an opinion on anyone because I didn’t really have one. After making the film, doing all the research, and meeting all the people, I personally believe that all prostitution laws harm the women that they claim to protect. When a woman is arrested and gets a criminal record, she no longer has a chance to get out of sex work even if she wanted to. When filling out a job application it will be difficult to explain the criminal record, especially with all the stigma that comes with prostitution. To add insult to injury, I am offended that only the woman is arrested." I do not like to use WP:SYNTH since you have been using it to draw some conclusions, I would use this quote to draw the conclusion that the film does not have a bias or any point of view. Also the editorial that I referenced before where Hurley advocates for the Swedish law was written before the law changed, so you are making a very big assumption about Hurley changing her mind. I believe she actually testified for the Swedish model at the hearings, you can check her blog for that. (Of course much of this back and forth between us has been on assumptions, things that are not allowed in wikipedia, but as you are new to wikipedia I assume good faith and am trying to respond to your questions) As for the prostitution legislation being to unbalanced, I would say that in the 16 years that Giannini has been in office she has had more local press coverage on the one prostitution bill than all other bills combined. She also had national coverage on television and newspapers for the prostitution bill. I do not believe any other bill she drafted ever made a national paper, never mind a national television broadcast.You Can't Clap with One Hand

I just reread the page on Hurley and I see that she never testified against the prostitution law. She is never mentioned in any of the references as testifying against the law so I removed that sentence from the paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GiselleRI (talk • contribs) 04:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have also updated the Tara Hurley page to reflect her feelings on the Swedish law that she supported. Thanks for pointing that out.You Can't Clap with One Hand (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

While I am still trying to assume good faith, I am noticing a pattern with your edits. You seem to be following me and changing edits I am making. This can fall under wp:stalk. The last edit I made was a wikilink to Donna Hughes on the Megan Andelloux page, and even though that was a completely legit edit, you undid it. Please stop following me and starting these editing wars.You Can't Clap with One Hand (talk) 16:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should assume I am making my edits in good faith. I am. I added a link to Prof. Hughes' URI page because her faculty position at the university was specifically mentioned in that sentence, and yet there was no link to her faculty web page. Just because we both make edits on the same Wikipedia pages doesn't mean I'm engaging in edit wars, and it doesn't mean I'm following you. No one "owns" any wikipedia page. I will continue to make edits on pages where I feel I can make a contribution. Please stop the hostile accusations.EconProfessor (talk) 02:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't explain removing a wiki link. This is the second time you have removed internal wikilinks from articles I have edited. Making a contribution is fine, but deleting and not having a reason is not acceptable. And there is no reason to remove a wikilink. This is not an accusation, this is just a fact.You Can't Clap with One Hand (talk) 03:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should re-read what you wrote to me above. Clearly you made accusations against me, and they are untrue. You should read the Wikipedia definition of edit wars. If someone makes an edit to a page -- even several edits -- that is not "starting edit wars." Wikipedia is a system that is built on encouraging people to make edits and add new content. I did give a reason for my edit, both at the time and in this subsequent discussion section. You may not agree with my reason, but I gave one, and I feel it is a valid one. Here it is again: "I added a link to Prof. Hughes' URI page because her faculty position at the university was specifically mentioned in that sentence, and yet there was no link to her faculty web page."

You have undone a number of edits that I have made these past few weeks, including some that would have added new content. Your remarks to me continue to be unfriendly. In the future, you should stop challenging my right to be on Wikipedia and limit your comments to the content of the article; otherwise I will simply make the edits directly and not engage in further discussions with you on these talk pages.EconProfessor (talk) 01:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, lets review. We first began to communicate with each other when, on June 8th you added an editorial comment to Joanne Giannini's page and some new legislative material. My comment was "In general we require reliable Secondary sources to include material. An editorial does not meet this criteria. The other sources you've included are perfect for factual inclusion on legislation, such as bills submitted, i.e. child strippers and cell phone usage while driving. Editorial writings do not qualify as sources as they are points of view." I removed the editorial comment, and reformated the rest to wiki standards. I don't see how this would qualify as unfriendly. After this you continued to remove parts of the article that had references, did some original research, a bunch WP:SYNTH, (all wikipedia no-nos) yet I still edited down the contested 2 sentence paragraph to assuage your concerns. Anyone can read the history and see that, on this page or on the Joanne Giannini discussion page. Now, you have twice removed inter wikilinks, with no reason given. (Adding a link outside of wiki does not mean you can remove one inside of wiki). My comments have been limited to the content of the articles only. If you review the history, you will see that you have been the unfriendly one who hurls accusations, and I have been the one who has been trying to be reasonable.You Can't Clap with One Hand (talk) 03:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not wish to debate or review with you every edit I have ever made on Wikipedia. I also do not wish to go back to talking about selected edits you would like to revisit. I already had extensive conversations with you on the talk/discussion pages about those edits in context and at the times they were made. You are the one who has been unfriendly, as the records show. I specifically asked you to limit your further communications with me to article content, and yet you continue to attack me and past edits I made in good faith. In the future, you may find concise explanations of my edits on the Wikipedia View History page. EconProfessor (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. — Jeff G. ツ 03:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Melissa Farley. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Even if your edits were accurate, you are adding BLP violations, and removing unsourced statements are not protected from 3RR unless they refer to living persons. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Donna Hughes. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. You have recently been removing referenced material from the Donna Hughes page. You have been warned by many of the editors on the page, and now you have decided to stop responding to the discussion on the talk page and started wholesale removal of content. This is unacceptable. You Can't Clap With One Hand^(Talk) 23:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]