Talk:Special rights/Archive 2

message: Alienus and Bhuck, rather than continuing to revert my edits, I'd like to understand why it is so important to you that this article, which describes a term overwhelmingly used by social conservatives to describe the efforts of gay activists to legally expand rights for gays, cannot be left explaining this without you introducing other relatively rare and unrelated views into the summary paragraph instead of further down in the article, and in changing the wording to the extent that the article becomes vague and easily misunderstood? DavidBailey 11:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It also does not mean that someone trying to improve an article should be reverted if three people disagree with him. Shall I bring some people of like mind to into the discussion to outnumber you? The number of editors doesn't matter. The viewpoints, clarity, and quality of the editing and text does. DavidBailey 01:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps. But Wikipedia is a work made by consensus, not by individuals. Tell you what -- I'll enter an request for comments to get some more eyes here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree, and have myself mediated many such disputes such as in Michael Jackson. But you should understand that Bhuck and Alienus have taken it upon themselves to cruise through nearly every article I work on and specifically oppose me and any others with similar opinions. They both proffer a very strong gay perspective and call it NPOV wording. The terms and perspective they use are all from the gay rights perspective. When articles offer an even remote obstacle to their opinions, they rewrite them to fit their viewpoint. Often, if an article discusses items politically related to homosexuality, they will introducing edits that distract from the main topic or discredit those who hold an opposing view to gay rights activists. An example of this kind of abuse for Bhuck is nuclear family. An example of this abuse with Alienus is homosexual agenda. When I try to contribute, I am nearly always reverted, not edited. After reverting me, even if I have established a consensus with the editors that have been working on the article, Alienus changes it to match his perspective, and when I revert him, he claims that I am edit warring with him. I find dealing with someone who choses to ignore WP policies regarding civility and consensus extremely troubling and a great waste of time when I could be researching and adding citations, text, and strengthening articles. DavidBailey 03:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see why you consider it "abuse" when I make edits that make clear how terms developed (such as nuclear family, to distinguish from extended family, or here, putting special rights in a more general context and then showing how specific political constellations try to take "ownership" of those terms).  If libertarians consider Affirmative Action to be a "special right", but don't spend as much time pushing that term on Internet blogs as social conservatives do, that doesn't mean that including libertarian views on racial issues is promoting gay rights.  I am curious to see what effects mediation will have here.--Bhuck 09:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: And indeed, I have not removed it from the article, but simply split it into a different section. If I look up a term, I should find the most common uses discussed first, followed by a historical perspective and then into the more esoteric. It does not make sense that an opening paragraph should discuss relatively obscure perspectives. DavidBailey 03:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Splitting different views into different sections