"

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   "