Talk:Prostitution in Rhode Island

Comment

Happy Endings: I would consider this an important source of information on the sex industry in Rhode island Mgoodyear (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Unbalanced tag

I've just added an "Unbalanced" tag to the "Current legislative position" section. Its pretty clear that the way the language of the article is phrased and some of the facts that are reported are slanted toward the side opposed to criminalization of prostitution. I say this as somebody who is also opposed to this legislation in my off-Wikipedia activism, and I acknowledge that most of the people who have taken an interest in this article probably are those who have been involved with this battle in some way. But on Wikipedia, lets be sure to keep it NPOV, OK? Iamcuriousblue (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Well that's mainly me IACB. The problem being that there is plenty of available literature from groups opposing the bills, but hardly anything in support other than CAT. Mgoodyear (talk) 12:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll double check it against some newspaper articles on the subject and edit it further for NPOV. Also, has CATW taken a position on this legislation? If it has, that should be noted. Donna Hughes remarks are also notable insofar as they've been noted by sources that meet the criteria of WP:VERIFY (and that excludes most blogosphere sources), but needs to handled carefully per WP:NPOV, WP:CONTROVERSY, and WP:BLP.

Also, I think the section "Parties in the debate" goes into excessive detail, making for difficult reading (one of the reasons I added the "copyedit" tag). It would probably be best to name the overall number of groups in the coalition against the legislation, then name a few of the more notable groups. Alternately, if this large number of groups and individuals really should stay in the article, then a list format would improve readability. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

CATW has stayed out of it - as CAT is the local organization. The main reason the organizations that are known to have made submissions are included, is that there are links to the actual material so that people can read it and form their own opinion. If you want to add more contrary views you can add the Brooks/Hughes critique of the Weitzer/Wood letter. There is also the recent oped from the Senators. Mgoodyear (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I added two articles supporting criminalisation and removed POV. Also this is clearly not a low importance stub Mgoodyear (talk) 21:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I just added current event tag as it is expected the law will change Tuesday.You Can't Clap with One Hand (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

More Detail on Legislative History Needed

Can someone help get some improvements on exactly what happened in 1998 versus 2003? Why didn't the 1998 ruling decriminalize prostitution? The judge's ruling needs some elaboration, as I think it's not obvious why that particular judgment didn't legalize prostitution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scunning (talk • contribs) 21:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The ruling in 1998 did decriminalize prostitution, but there wasn't a test case until 2003. I would put that in the article but I don't know how.You Can't Clap with One Hand (talk) 01:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions about the article

First, I wanted to thank everyone involved in expanding this article, something that was needed given the current high-profile legislative activity around RI's prostitution laws.

However, I want to note some problems with the article that need work:

1) The prostitution situation in RI, beyond the legislation surrounding it, needs to be addressed. Some aspects that might be addressed – What forms does it take? Massage parlors? Organized brothels? Escorting? Street prostitution? What agencies are enforcing the laws that do exist and how are they doing it? (eg, Sting operations by local police?) The Rhode Island newspapers probably are a source for this, and I'll also note that the Happy Endings documentary is a valid source (albeit a partisan one, and care has to be taken for balance in this regard), as long as care is taken to cite the film accurately. (Direct quotations at the end of an inline footnote are probably called for here.) Is there any academic literature about prostitution in Rhode Island?

2) I'll note that, so far, this article is being edited by people with very strong views on the subject, myself included. The article was tagged at least once in the last few days over NPOV concerns. I'll note that it is general Wikipedia policy to explain such concerns here on the talk page as soon as such tagging takes place so that the issue may be resolved. In general, it would be best if everybody concerned try their best to stick to WP:NPOV overall rather than treating the article as a "race" to get as much of their side's "facts" in.

3) Article organization and writing – overall, it needs work, and the article is presently not an easy read. There is too much minutae packed into the article that lacks more generalizing context and many of the paragraphs are overstuffed. In particular, the paragraph that begins "On October 28th, the House passed...." is very long, with a lot of long quotes and not easy to follow.

Iamcuriousblue (talk) 23:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

One more thing, we should all decide on how to cite sources. The footnote section is a mess. If we want to come up with a uniform way to do it, I will go in an redo it, but let me know what formula we want to use.You Can't Clap with One Hand (talk) 02:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Preferred style is to use Wikipedia templates for references. There is a reference generator here: [1]. Include as much information as possible, though publisher is typically not necessary except for book sources. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 06:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Article is in a very bad shape

I have tried to tidy up a little this article, mainly changing tenses, rephrasing, reorganizing etc, but this article is still a total mess; much of it needs to be rewritten. I'm not sure how exactly it should be organized, but right now the Legislative battle section is much too long and it isn't clear at all. It needs to be sumarized, and some things, such as the opinions of all those people (the legislators) about the bills need to be taken out of that section and moved into Parties in debate, if they are to be kept in the article.

Also the History section needs to go much more back in time. When was prostitution in RI outlawed for the first time ? What was the situation before that? Throughout the history of the state? The situation during the 20th centuary? During the '90ies-2000ies etc? Of course all these need to be properly sourced and written by someone who is very familiar with the subject, but if there's a "History" section in this article I think they should be in it.

The section Significance also needs to be expanded. Probably the article needs a section "Aftermath" or something like that.

123username (talk) 02:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The section History should describe the legal history of prostituion and at the same time what was going on in practice during the respective period, or if not, there should be a separate "Prostitution in practice" section or something like that.

123username (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I started clean up, I think the break up of the legislative battle makes more sense. We should work on making the Special Legislative Session easier to read.You Can't Clap with One Hand (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with moving or removing the legislators quotes. That is what makes up a legislative battle, right?You Can't Clap with One Hand (talk) 22:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Parties in the debate section

Even if User:Gregory Benoit went about it the wrong way, it is actually correct to point out that this section is unbalanced. There were many more groups and individuals that had supported CAT and the RI Senate version of the bill than are listed in this section. Here are some links from CAT's website detailing this: [2] [3].

Sorry I've been too busy to contribute much to the editing of this article myself, BTW. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 18:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

"Prostitute" vs "Sex Worker"

It looks like in the most recent round of edits, someone has gone through and removed every instance of the word "sex worker" or "community of sex workers" and and replaced it with "prostitute[s]". I find this kind of purging of the word "sex worker" is inevitably ideologically-motivated and strongly POV. Basically, it is proper to use the word "sex worker" when speaking generally about 1) sex work in a context that includes more than just prostitution, or 2) in the context of the sex worker rights movement. I've kept the first two changes, as COYOTE referred to itself as a prostitutes-rights group and was lobbying on the subject of prostitution legislation. I reverted one edit, because political lobbying came from academics and non-prostitute sex workers (eg, Megan Andelloux). Another edit, I simply made the statement "word spread quickly" more general. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 19:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Describing prostitutes as ‘sex workers’ is POV itself. It tries to conflate several things, such as sex surrogacy, with prostitution to make prostitution seem legitimate. The ‘sex-workers rights movement’ is about commercial sex, prostitution.

And the stigma is there for a reason. 2601:647:667F:8610:3945:F1A3:DE4F:EAB8 (talk) 03:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Picture of Pat the Patriot

I do not think this picture is necessary for the article. It adds nothing. It is not a photograph of the man who wears the suit, just a photograph of the mascot, and it seems to put a sarcastic/humorous tone to this article that does not seem appropriate. If no one objects within seven days I will remove it. 209.104.239.26 (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No objections, so I have removed the picture. 209.104.239.26 (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I put the picture back in. Wikipedia doesn't work on any arbitrary time line of 7 days, and it is referenced.You Can't Clap with One Hand (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Whoopee, it's referenced. That doesn't change the fact that the picture does not enhance the article in any positive way, and tilts this article out of NPOV. It seems that you want to mock the police officers who made the arrests and/or this man who was arrested, and therefore are using a humorous picture of the Patriots mascot to make it seem as though the mascot itself was arrested. I am removing the picture again, and I have no problem taking this to arbitration if we have to. 209.104.239.26 (talk) 13:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Take it to arbitration then. I will wait to hear what they say. I am not mocking, but it is referenced, so it stays until there is a group decision or arbitration decided.You Can't Clap with One Hand (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Just started down that road by requesting comment. If that does not go anywhere, I will not hesitate to escalate to mediation and then arbitration. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. You wanting that picture to be there for whatever reason does not mean that it is the best thing for the article, or that no one else can have a say.

209.104.239.26 (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Just putting up a question and then removing something before people have a say is not coming to an agreement. We should let people have a say. You wanting the picture removed, and then removing it with out allowing people to discuss it for whatever reason does not mean it is the best thing for the article either. I just think people should be able to discuss it. Isn't that community? Adding snippy comments does not help either, but I will wait for arbitration. Have a nice dayYou Can't Clap with One Hand (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I most certainly did give an opportunity for people to discuss it. No one seemed to care, so I removed the picture as the silence seemed to me to indicate a consensus that no one would mind if I did. Also, I did explain why I removed it. You have yet to explain why you think it needs to be included. Care to do so?

As I said, discussions do not work on a time line of one week, or a time line set by any one user.You Can't Clap with One Hand (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

And yet that still doesn't answer my main question. Why do you feel that this picture needs to be included in the article, and how do you think it improves it? 209.104.239.26 (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I was assuming good faith until your only argument for keeping the picture was "lol it's referenced," which is not reason enough for a picture to be included in an article. If that were true, I could put in a picture of anything I wanted into this article as long as it was referenced. 209.104.239.26 (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I am wondering who you are quoting? I never used lol. Your language is very aggressive and sarcastic with whoopee, lol, hahahaha and things like that.You Can't Clap with One Hand (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be a very avid editor, but I would suggest you also read WP:EQYou Can't Clap with One Hand (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I would rather be rude than purposefully obtuse, as you are being. 209.104.239.26 (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I actually didn't care if the picture was in or not, but the process is important. As I said, you can not just put your self important time line on an conversation. Thanks and have a nice day.14:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)You Can't Clap with One Hand (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That then begs the question of why you added it in the first place, but that's neither here nor there as the issue is resolved. Thanks for the passive aggressive nice day wishes. 209.104.239.26 (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

RFC Request

Is photograph of Pat the Patriot necessary, appropriate, and helpful for the Aftermath section? 209.104.239.26 (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinion

• The citations given don't even support the claim that Sormanti was arrested under the new law. Even if a source does mention it, per WP:BLPNAME his name should be removed. Negative information about relatively obscure living people should have more than trivial value to justify its inclusion. If no reliable sources can be found about the arrest, then information about it should not be included. Even if reliable sourcing can be found about the arrest, I'd lean toward not including it because it seems to be a mostly trivial matter that doesn't really have an impact on the topic at hand. The matter of the picture is secondary to the biographical concerns here. Gigs (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. In my (probably overly zealous) objection to the arguably unhelpful inclusion of the picture, I had not considered the BLP issues at hand. Regardless, I will wait for GiselleRI to weigh in before editing the article. 209.104.239.26 (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Picture as Unsourced Contentious BLP Information

This story says that Sormanti is not the only person who wears the costume. Including the photo is, therefore, adding unsourced contentious biographical information as to those unnamed individuals. WP:GRAPEVINE requires it, therefore, to be be immediately removed and makes it a policy violation to put it back up even a single time. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC) (Refactored heading. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC))

I disagree that this is a BLP issue, since Sormanti's name is different than the names of the other actors who play Pat Patriot.

However, the referenced article details not only the names of all accused, but their home addresses as well. Rhode Island seems to have joined the list of communities who impose extra-judicial punishment on those accused of consensual crimes by publicly humiliating the accused without benefit of a trial, but punishment is not part of Wikipedia's mission.

Delete the picture and the reference from the article. Thundermaker (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Copy Right

Starting a section on copy right. I think it is a bit over the top to remove half the article. I will ask people who have contributed to this article to contribute to this discussion.You Can't Clap With One Hand ^(Talk) 19:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giselle (talk • contribs)

I just reverted it, and I'm asking the person who did it to specify what in the article they think is a violation of copyright. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 20:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Some of the text in this article is copied directly from [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], and [9]. This verbatim copying goes beyond what I believe is allowed as fair use. Copyright on this pages is claimed by the text at the bottom: "© The Providence Journal Co., 75 Fountain St., Providence, RI 02902. All Rights Reserved." There may be other instances, but these are the references I checked. -- Beland (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

This article was listed for administrator review at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 December 27. It has come due for closure, and evaluation finds that content has been copied with little or no change from a number of news sources. This material was copied wholesale, not marked as quotations, which is in itself a violation of our copyright policies, but even if it had been used as quotation would have been unusable under our non-free content policy and guideline as the content was lengthy and used for no other reason than to reproduce the information. Quotes must be used [[transformation {law)|transformatively]]; some of the valid reasons we may use quotes are set out at WP:NFC. I have scanned the article through one of our mechanical detectors and located no additional issues. If more are found, please remove them. And thank you, Beland, for listing this matter for review. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: various news sources. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand what plagiarism is, I am as against as you are, and understand the need for removal of such material. What I had found questionable was taking out half the article because you found one or two plagiarized sentences within it. As I remember it, the part of the article that is tagged is the result of multiple edits by multiple editors, who's work is not being dumped because of the plagiarism of one editor. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 11:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I did not tag the article; I responded to a listing at an adminsitrator's noticeboard. If there is copied content in articles, it cannot be restored. All of the content that has been removed from the article was verified as having been copied from sources. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The {{copyvio}} tag blanks the remainder of the article after it is added, even if it's only part of the blanked section that's illegal. I presume this is to prevent editors from wasting time editing text that must be removed, or to prevent the violation from being compounded by continuing to display the illegal text. Perhaps there's a better way to do this, but as far as I know what happened is standard procedure. I see some discussion at Template_talk:Copyviocore#auto-hiding_of_text. -- Beland (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Prostitution in Rhode Island. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100301090341/http://newsblog.projo.com:80/2010/02/4-women-charged-in-prostitutio.html to http://newsblog.projo.com/2010/02/4-women-charged-in-prostitutio.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)