Talk:Happy Endings?

I like it the happy ending —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.130.104 (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Linkspam?

I'm having a look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Happy_Endings?, and it looks like this article is linked to in many places where this film is a peripheral subject and mention of it is tendentious. Basically, it looks like its been linkspammed into the article, hence, in violation of WP:Spam. I intend to go over these pages soon and consider the link to this article in each case on its own merit. I think this will result in my removing it from a number of articles. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 17:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I want to move discussion of possible linkspamming of this article from Talk:Donna M. Hughes to here. I'm mirroring earlier discussion from that thread here. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC):

---

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) 18:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

---

I think you've hit on the key issue here: "My question is, is the mere fact that somebody appears in a documentary reason to mention that in their bio?" I haven't seen this documentary, so it's hard for me to comment conclusively. As for the broader question (what level of involvement in a documentary confers enough weight to include that documentary on the BLP), we can get some idea by looking at other, similar cases on Wikpedia. The first that comes to mind to me is Roger Smith and the movie Roger and Me. In a certain sense, Smith is the indirect subject of the film, although he appears only briefly. While his BLP mentions his being in the film, it does so very indirectly. Another place to look is An Inconvenient Truth. Notice how fleetingly it's mentioned on Al Gore's page, especially given how important the film was (Academy Award Winner, directly related to Gore's receiving a Nobel Prize, etc.). On the other hand, for the film Deliver Us From Evil, both the main subject (Oliver O'Grady) and a secondary subject (Roger Mahony) have significant sections on their BLPs about the documentary. Can anyone think of a more relevant comparison--one in which a famous, non-actor appears in a documentary as a cursory character (say, as a person who is interviewed, not as a subject), so that we could look to their BLPs for guidance? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

A good example of a doc that a lot of famous people appeared in was The Aristocrats. I think its something worth mentioning on, say, Sarah Silverman's bio, because her appearance in that doc was one of the notable scenes in that film and really raised her profile significantly. On the other hand, Bill Maher was also in it, for less than 5 minutes. Its mentioned in his filmography, but merits no further attention. If there wasn't a filmography in his bio, it wouldn't merit any attention. The other thing is, Happy Endings? is kind of obscure. Its gotten some press attention and played at some film festivals, but its not a major documentary film. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 01:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we should look at other indie documentary films, since that is essentially what "Happy Endings?" is. The easiest way to find those films is to go to Category:American documentary films follow random directors to the film and see if the characters are linked or mentioned. Most of these articles are stubs, but here are some of my findings of those that have character listings.

This Is the Life (film) lists the people interviewed in the film, and on those people's pages have mention of the film, usually under Film or Appearances in.

Street Fight Has links to Cory Booker and the film is mentioned in his page.

William_Kunstler: Disturbing the Universe lists Wiliam Kuntsler and his page mentions him.

Rethink Afghanistan lists people interviewed but in those individual's pages the film is not mentioned.

Hip-Hop: Beyond Beats and Rhymes didn't go through all the characters, but Chuck D is listed, and the film appears on his page.

I don't know if this is a good sample but this is what I came across. I think this is a good place to begin.You Can't Clap with One Hand (talk) 03:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

In the case of the Kunstler doc, the film is about him so it makes perfect sense that its mentioned in his bio. Now in the case of the two hip-hop docs and Rethink Afghanistan, most of the people interviewed in those do not have those films mentioned on their bio page. That's what I'm getting at when I say that mention of Happy Endings? is not appropriate on many of the pages it appears on. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

In This is the Life (Film) the film appears on 5 of the interviewed pages, Myka 9, P.E.A.C.E., Freestyle Fellowship,Chali 2na, Abstract Rude, does not appear on 3 of the interviewed pages. Cut Chemist, Pigeon John,Busdriver. I will go through the others when I have time.You Can't Clap with One Hand (talk) 14:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I feel that the people interviewed in the film should have a mention in their page. It should be under appearance appearances in media or see also. Here is a short list of documentary films that list characters and the characters link back to the film with the film mentioned in their page. I am sure I can find more, but this is what I came up with in a few minutes.

Assault in the Ring

Street Fight

This is the Life (Film)

Beautiful Losers (film)

Murderball (film)

74.103.226.66 (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I've put out a request for comment on this. I'll go with whatever consensus emerges. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 18:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Links to/Mention of this film in other articles

There is a disagreement over the appropriateness about inclusion of a mention of this film/links to the article in several other articles. Iamcuriousblue (talk)

The articles specifically at issue are the following:

• BAYSWAN
• David Cicilline
• Donna M. Hughes
• Joanne Giannini

Note that this not a disagreement over all mentions of this film/links to this article. In the articles Tara Hurley and Prostitution in Rhode Island, there is a consensus that mention of the film and linking of this article is topical.

The arguments raised so far are discussed in the previous section. Some additional input as to the appropriateness of the above links would be helpful. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Include I believe these people should be included. Since there are other pages of documentary films that have linked to the people, and the people mention the film on their page, I don't see a problem. There is an additional Providence Journal Reference for Cicilline appearance, The BAYSWAN page has a reference with a radio interview the director of the org did. These references aren't commercial websites, and appearing in a film isn't controversial so there is no reason to remove them.You Can't Clap With One Hand ^(Talk) 20:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Do not include The Happy Endings film is described as chronicling "the lives of the women in massage parlors in Rhode Island." That is the story line, and any roles played by Mayor Cicilline, Rep. Giannini, and Prof. Hughes are very minor. It is also unclear whether these individuals were filmed unknowlingly in public places and/or whether they specifically consented to be in this movie. In the Content section of Happy Endings? page, the film is described as "cinema verite" which can include the use of camera to provoke people being filmed and "relying heavily on guerilla filmmaking techniques" which can include filming people without prior warning or permission. Mayor Cicilline, Rep. Giannini, and Prof. Hughes all took public positions against decriminalized prostitution in 2009. The Happy Endings film is basically opposed their view because it opposes the arrest of Asian spa workers for prostitution. Why should this self-described underground, guerrilla film be promoted on the Wikipedia pages of people who may not have asked to be in the movie, and who held an opposing view? And the DVD is not even identified on their Wikipedia pages as holding an opposing view. People would have to buy the DVD to see this, and that's not right. I do not see any place where the individuals themselves have written about being in the Happy Endings DVD. These statements were placed on their Wikipedia pages, with links to the movie site, by GiselleRI. She also placed Happy Endings descriptions on the pages of Sen. Rhoda Perry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhoda_Perry and The Phoenix http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Providence_Phoenix. There may be other places. To avoid wikispamming, I say the references to Happy Endings should be limited to its own film page, to the page of filmmaker Tara Hurley, and if there's consensus, to the Prostitution in RI page. Happy Endings especially does not belong on the pages of Mayor Cicilline, Rep. Giannini, and Prof. Hughes.EconProfessor (talk) 00:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Mention of the film absolutely belongs in Prostitution in Rhode Island, though it needs to be changed from a "See also" link to text contextualizing it better, perhaps as part of an "In media" section. As for the rest, your personal antipathy toward the film's POV and "underground, guerrilla" technique is noted; that is not a valid argument for or against mention of this film on various pages, however. Topicality, notability, verifiability, and like criteria are what is relevant here. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 01:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Include EconProfessor said "people who may not have asked to be in the movie, and who held an opposing view?" This seems like WP:SYNTH and the documentary is an observational documentary and does not promote any viewpoint. Do the interviews on this page look like the director jumped out of the bushes and forced Mayor Cicilline, Rep Giannini, or Donna Hughes to give answers? http://www.happyendingsdocumentary.com/characters.html

Also there is no links to the movie site. The links are to a non-commercial website, and 2 different news sources.68.9.84.51 (talk) 02:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment You can see that these people participated willingly in the making of this film. Here is an interview on the Rhode Island CBS affiliate channel where the reporter asks Giannini about being in the film. http://www.wpri.com/dpp/on_air/newsmakers/local_wpri_newsmakers_daniel_converse_joanne_giannini_20090724_nek You Can't Clap With One Hand ^(Talk) 02:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Include: As I mentioned in the original discussion, at least for the Donna M. Hughes article, I think a mention of the documentary should be included because it was influential in shaping the events regarding the "prostitution in Rhode Island controversy" (it is not only very topical, but the Providence Daily Dose reports that the trailer was viewed 100,000 times), it includes footage of Hughes arguing her points (making it even more topical and certainly useful as a WP:RS), and Hughes offered her own analysis of the film (which certainly offers more credence to the mention's claim of notability). Clearly, many felt that Ms. Hughes's opinions on the film were important enough to ask for, and she felt offering her opinion important enough to make a public statement about. Since a case can be made for inclusion with regards to Hughes, I think it's even more appropriate for Giannini's article and the others. That said, I do think leaving the mention to fend for itself in an unfinished paragraph is unconstructive, so it should be merged into the rest of the text. I offered my own suggestion for doing this on the Hughes article. I'm still looking forward to hear feedback on my suggestion. --Meitar (talk) 03:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• • • Comment To the point that EconProffessor made that this is a film that holds an opposing view, in another interview on a CBS station, the reporter states "In the film one side calls the women of the spas slaves and victims. But several women interviewed in the film offer a voice you may not hear on Smith Hill or from the office of Mayor Ciccilline." I believe that means both sides are represented. You can see that interview on the news here: Also, I agree with Meitar, it should be included, merged into the text.You Can't Clap With One Hand ^(Talk) 12:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Comment: Can I just ask, having not seen the film (yet), even if it were one-sided, why would that be grounds for not including it on the Wikipedia articles? I thought, as User:Iamcuriousblue pointed out, the criteria should be notability, verifiability, and topicality. Anyway, maybe User:EconProfessor can explain how perceived one-sidedness is germane to this conversation and not merely a POV position? --Meitar (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Comment I believe Wikipedia policies of WP:Spam and WP:Verifiability are the most relevant here. In terms of WP:Spam, the official film story line is described as following the lives of Asian spa workers in RI. The film is not described as being about Joanne Giannini, David Cicilline, Donna Hughes, Rhoda Perry, or the Providence Phoenix. Read "Loodog's" objections to references/links to the Happy Endings? DVD being placed David Cicilline's page. I think Iamcuriousblue had similar concerns in opening this talk page. Consider a hypothetical question: Would it be okay for this DVD to be linked to multiple Wikipedia pages relating to Asia? Spas? Rhode Island? I think we'd all agree that would be Wikispammming. The point is, just because someone or something appears in a film doesn't mean the film description and external link belongs on their Wikipedia page. Now consider WP:Verifiability. Referencing a DVD is not like referencing an online news source. People can go to an online print news source such as linked article and read it right away, for free, to verify a Wikipedia statement being made. This is not true for source material that is only available on DVD, and that must be purchased to view it. In the case of Happy Endings?, we have the written IMDb summary, which is not a reliable source as Qwyrxian pointed out above (July 13). Even if we were to accept the IMDb summary, it tells us this movie is about Asian spa workers, not about Joanne Giannini, David Cicilline, and Donna Hughes. There's no way for Wikipedia editors/readers to independently verify the movie content and possible POV issues (that editors might need to identify in the interest of maintaining a NPOV page) without actually buying the DVD. I think that placing statements and links to the Happy Endings? DVD on these individuals' pages violates Wikipedia spam and verifiability standards, so should not be allowed.EconProfessor (talk) 10:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment: How is having to go buy a DVD different than having to go buy a book or an academic study held behind a pay wall or a thesis paper accessible only via some university login? Those kinds of citations typically meet WP:VERIFY. Since the DVD includes footage of Giannini, Hughes et. al., arguing their points and discussing their views, I see very little difference between such first-person footage and first-person writings. As for the DVD's own description, it is simply silly to say that the film bills itself as having little involvement by those people and is WP:SPAM in itself. (The Characters page lists the Mayor right near the top of the page and both Giannini and Hughes are listed as prominent characters as well!) Besides, as User:Qwyrxian pointed out, the Happy Endings DVD is certainly useful as a reliable source about these characters, so I find your arguments daft despite being couched in verbose pseudo-authority. --Meitar (talk) 14:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Comment:If you look at loodog's comment, he agrees that the Providence Journal is a fine reference for the Cicilline page. Also EconProfessor keeps saying that these links are going to an external site for commercial purposes, yet none of the references are commercial sites?? I would agree if these links were leading the reader to an Amazon page or to the website of "Happy Endings?" where they could buy the DVD, but that is not the case. There are radio, newspaper, and television references mentioned in the conversation above with these people talking about this film. GiselleRI (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Comment I wish to engage in a polite and civil discussion relating to the placement of Happy Endings? film references, and I ask that Meitar refrain from using derogatory language when responding to my statements. WP: Spam states "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam." The Wikipedia definition of spam involves "promoting" a website of product. It doesn't say that the added links must go to a directly commercial purchase site to be considered spam. I am not the only one who raised the issue of WP:Spam. Loodog and Iamcuriousblue raised this objection as well. I don't see any direct statements by Loodog that Projo is a fine source. However, the Projo article in question seems to be the most reliable secondary source for this film. http://www.projo.com/art/content/HAPPY_ENDINGS_FILM_05-24-09_Q9EFHNF_v25.1ecfa95.html The film's story line is about following the lives of 2 Korean spa workers. The ProJo references David Cicilline's part in the film, but it doesn't mention Joanne Giannini or Donna Hughes. The fact that Joanne Giannini and Donna Hughes are not identififed by name ("among others?") indicates that their parts in this film were minor. Meitar references the Happy Endings? web site itself as a source; however this could be considered a promotional blog rather than an independent reliable source. Also see that GiselleRI created Rhoda Perry's Wikipedia page on October 3, 2009, and then she immediately posted the Happy Endings? information and the IMDb blog site link. No one has posted edits to Rhoda Perry's page since that day. Rhoda Perry wasn't mentioned in the ProJo article either. GiselleRI created Joanne Giannini's page on July 31, 2009 and then she added Happy Endings? the next day, August 1. Iamcuriousblue created Donna Hughes' page on August 27, 2009, and GiselleRI added Happy Endings? to her page shortly after that on September 2. On July 29, 2009 Loodog also challenged the placement of Happy Endings? on the Providence Phoenix page on July 13. The film premiered on May 24, 2009, according to the ProJo. The placement and timing of Happy Endings? references by GiselleRI on these multiple Wikipedia sites so soon after the premiere strongly suggest it was being spammed (in addition to other reasons already described). For reasons of WP: Spam and WP:Verifiability, Happy Endings? should be removed from the pages of Joanne Giannini, Donna M Hughes, and Rhoda Perry.EconProfessor (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I also wish to participate in a polite and civil discussion. With that said, I will point out these facts

• EconProfessor says "I don't see any direct statements by Loodog that Projo is a fine source."

Incorrect,here is a direct quote from Loodog. It can be seen under Sources in User talk:GiselleRI
This source you've included is perfect: [1] because it mentions the film and Cicilline's involvement, and it appears in the Projo.--Loodog (talk) 02:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• EconProfessor says "The fact that Joanne Giannini and Donna Hughes are not identififed by name ("among others?") indicates that their parts in this film were minor."

We have already discussed this above, Ginnini appears on TV news and the film is discussed. Hughes has even talked bout the film on her website.

• EconProfessor says "Also see that GiselleRI created Rhoda Perry's Wikipedia page on October 3, 2009, and then she immediately posted the Happy Endings? information and the IMDb blog site link. No one has posted edits to Rhoda Perry's page since that day."

Incorrect. I have added clean elections act to the legislation section of the page.

• EconProfessor says "The placement and timing of Happy Endings? references by GiselleRI on these multiple Wikipedia sites so soon after the premiere strongly suggest it was being spammed"

This is WP:SYNTH but I would think if someone was doing this for publicity they would do it before the premiere?GiselleRI (talk) 02:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

All editors should stop worrying about trying to guess the intentions of others and worry about the content itself. I, myself, am torn on this issue. From the above look at other documentaries, we see both instances where the information is cross-referenced, and where it is not. In the instance of Donna Hughes, I'm inclined to say the sentence and wikilink should stay, because the topic of the movie is directly related to the issue for which Hughes herself is notable. I don't, however, think that there's a universal standard we can apply, as the real issue is WP:WEIGHT. WP:SPAM isn't relevant, because even if the original intention was spam (I'm not saying it was), it's not like there is a link to the movie page itself--it's just a sentence containing info and wikilinks. WP:V isn't relevant, as her appearance in the film is documented in the film credits itself (that you have to pay to get the DVD is irrelevant--otherwise, how would we ever write cast lists for any tv show or movie?). The question is simply whether or not her involvement plays a relevant enough part in her notability to be included. I think this probably needs to be decided on each article's talk page, as the answer may well differ for each participant. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Well said User:Qwyrxian. I bought a copy of Happy Endings? and it arrived in the mail today. I'll watch it shortly and am happy to see for myself. --Meitar (talk) 03:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

(Undenting) I finally had time to watch the Happy Endings? DVD myself. Contrary to User:EconProfessor's assertions, Mayor David Cicilline, and Rep. Joanne Giannini play extremely prominent roles in the film. Both appear even more often than Donna M. Hughes does. To make my point, I'll detail Donna M. Hughes' appearance:

• Donna M. Hughes appears in the Happy Endings? film in 6 distinct scenes, 5 of which have direct quotes in full sentences (her first appearance, at time mark 34:31 is only a fragment). I went through the trouble of transcribing her appearances:
  1. At time mark 48:16, Donna M. Hughes says, and I quote: "Sex trafficking process begins with the demand for victims. Many people say 'what's the cause of trafficking' and they look back at the destination countries and they start talking about poverty. I believe that the sex trafficking process begins right where the victim is being exploited. By the demand. Somebody has to fill up all those brothels, all those massage parlors, all those spas, all those escort services. They have to come from somewhere. There are few women who will enter prostitution if they have other choices. The majority is trafficked for commercial sexual exploitation. Each year there are 4 million people trafficked or enslaved. The men who purchase sex acts: these men are usually faceless and nameless, yet they are the ultimate consumers of trafficked women and children. They truly make a choice to buy sex. We can get into all sorts of debates about whether women choose to be in prostitution but truly the men choose to purchase sex acts. First of all, the men, which I said was a demand factor, is that we have to make men accountable for their actions. No kidding. Is that just something we're going to laugh about? Okay."
  2. At time mark 54:32, Donna M. Hughes says, quote: "Who are these networks of traffickers? They extend to the highest levels of government to the lowliest criminals. The police officers come to the brothels to pick up their money, to take the bribes. Or come and actually use the women and girls there."
  3. At time mark 1:06:12, Donna M. Hughes says, quote: "Quite often only foreign victims are mentioned and specifically Korean women here in Rhode Island. US Citizens are victims of trafficking as well. In fact, we have 10 to 12 times as many US citizen victims of sex trafficking in the United States than we have foreign victims."
  4. At time mark 1:09:15, Donna M. Hughes says, quote: "There are around 15 to 20 States now that have anti-trafficking laws at the State level. So far there has not been 1 case brought under any of these laws." And later, as part of the same scene, at time mark 1:10:04, she says, "Pimp culture is celebrated, glorified in music videos."
  5. Finally, at time mark 1:17:35, I think the following conversation between Donna M. Hughes and Tara Hurley is most telling:
     • Hughes: "Okay, is it on?"
     • Hurley: "It is on."
     • Hughes: "Okay, well let me say it even better: When you say that prostitution is the oldest profession, what you are saying is that women are whores, they always have been, and they always will be. It is an extremely sexist comment."

In other words, it is simply crystal clear from viewing the film that in no way Mayor David Cicilline, Rep. Joanne Giannini, or Donna M. Hughes were filmed unknowingly, that they each consented to be in the film (Donna M. Hughes even asked if the camera was on and smiled straight into it), and that they each played significant roles in the film. It's unsurprising, then, that the film's "Characters" page would list each of these people very prominently. In at least these three cases, reference to the film most definitely belongs on their respective articles.

I'm going to copy the above onto Talk:Donna M. Hughes in order to let editors there use the information to integrate Professor Hughes' statements in the film into her bio article and cite the film as a source, as has been remarked is appropriate. --Meitar (talk) 10:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Include but rewrite: Now having seen Happy Endings? myself, I see that the appearances of Cicilline, Giannini, and Hughes, as well as Rhoda Perry are more than just incidentally shown in the film. Hence, I now feel that mention of the film in those biographies is OK, if it is properly contextualized and discussed in the context of the part they played in the political battle around prostitution in Rhode Island. In the case of David Cicilline, it might even be usable as a source for more than that, since the film discusses quite a bit about his background as a civil liberties attorney. I still feel having removed its mention from the article on COYOTE was merited, though I think the use of the film as a footnote source concerning COYOTE's role in the decriminalization of indoor prostitution in RI and the COYOTE v. Roberts case would be merited. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, just wanted to add that concerns that the above-mentioned individuals were filmed surreptitiously are groundless, and I'm not sure if that would have been a concern per WP:SOURCE, in any event. Its quite clear that the interviews were openly conducted by Hurley and the film crew, and as Meiter points out, the last appearance of Hughes in the film shows her acknowledging being filmed. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

References