Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lou franklin/Evidence: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Moving from evidence page |
reverting my move of comments. there are some accusations there (though not a single diff, wonder why), I guess it's evidence just as much as the other rant, and I'm not moving all of it. |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
===Response to Malthusian's comments=== |
|||
I have greatly improved this article. For this, I have been called "an extremist homophobe", a "crackpot", a "jerk", "paranoid", a "garden-variety troll", a "12-year-old", a "nutcase", and "an unrepentant far-right extremist bigot". So it's a bit ironic that I am accused of being "uncivil". |
|||
All I have done is told the truth. Look at the user pages of the people who have edited the article. Almost all of them state that they are gay. I didn't make that up. The section below entitled "Lou franklin is frequently uncivil" could easily be renamed "Lou franklin is frequently truthful". I wish that I ''could'' assume that the authors of this article have acted in good faith, but all you have to do is read through the history of the article to know that it is not so. |
|||
An example: "''Statistically, damage from natural disasters in the modern United States is not correlated well with homosexual population, but it does correlate with Protestantism''." Is that a fair and neutral statement that belongs in an encyclopedia? |
|||
Another example: "''In most developed countries, same-sex relationships are accepted''". Is that a verifiable fact that belongs in an encyclopedia, or is that propaganda/advocacy? |
|||
Another example: "''38% of the general public think that 'homosexual behavior' is wrong''". But take a look at the information in the link cited. The percent of the general public who agree that homosexual behavior is morally wrong is broken down this way: |
|||
:Completely Agree: 38% |
|||
:Somewhat Agree: 13% |
|||
:Somewhat Disagree: 16% |
|||
:Completely Disagree: 26% |
|||
So it isn't accurate to say that "38% of the general public think that 'homosexual behavior' is wrong". The correct percentage is 51% (38% + 13%). |
|||
Don't you find it just a little dishonest that it was reported as 38%? How could that have been reported in an encyclopedia article? Another honest mistake? |
|||
A link to the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality ( http://www.narth.com ) was repeatedly removed because it was "not an appropriate source". But a link to this personal homepage ( http://www.ziplink.net/~glen ) was allowed. That site has a picture of a guy on his couch in a tee shirt (ostensibly "Glen"). It says "Welcome to my site" and purports to be "the one web page that has everything! Including me!" The site was "last updated 6-13-99". For some reason "Glen" was never put through the rigorous journalistic litmus tests that my links are subjected to. Is it a coincidence that "Glen" has a pro-gay message? |
|||
These words come directly from the talk page: |
|||
:''From the gay rights advocacy point of view, one would think that accepting and addressing the current majority opinion would be the path forwards to attaining their goal (presumably, by convincing the people in the center to change their opinion, if that is in fact what can and will eventually happen). Playing down that the majority and centrist opinions are largely against same-sex marriage is a play for media mindshare, perhaps, but not effective at changing voters minds.'' |
|||
:''This needs to be addressed in a NPOV manner.'' |
|||
Are the editors of this article concerned with making it the best and most truthful article it can be, or are they advertising? Should the best "path forwards to attaining their goal from the gay rights advocacy point of view" be the key factor for those who edit this article? Is that really what Wikipedia is for? |
|||
Should people who write encyclopedia articles really be concerned with "playing down majority and centrist opinions", "media mindshare", and the strategy that will be most "effective at changing voters' minds"? |
|||
Doesn't it bother anyone here that a discussion between editors of a supposedly impartial article would include a conversation about which strategy will be most "effective at changing voters' minds" and what "would be the path forwards to attaining the goal of gay rights advocates"? How could those terms have found their way to the discussion page of this article? |
|||
No encyclopedia in the country would print the propaganda contained in this article. Do the right thing and remove it. --[[User:Lou franklin|Lou franklin]] |
|||