Talk:Spartacus International Gay Guide

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Spartacus International Gay Guide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130805124357/http://www.brunogmuender.com/products/details/id/8090_Spartacus_International_Gay_Guide_App/ to http://www.brunogmuender.com/products/details/id/8090_Spartacus_International_Gay_Guide_App/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I am happy working on ways to improve the article, but please do just delete sections en masse. I am copying the below from my talk page discussion with Mondodi.
:I first came across the Stamford-pedophile links whilst doing some research on gay bars in the UK over the decades using old Spartacus guides. I was quite shocked (and depressed) to see the open espousal of pro-pedophilia sentiments in the magazines, and the support for PIE. As the other editor said, the 'gay=pedo' was an old smear tactic used by the homophobes who opposed gay equality. 99% of the time they were wrong, but a broken clock is right twice a day and in terms of Spartacus there was a clear link (note that PIE also infiltrated the civil rights group Liberty at the same time in an attempt to normalise their cause).
:Given the seriousness of the allegations, my intention was to document the matter with as much evidence as possible. Maybe this is excessive, but I do not think going the other way and just covering it in one sentence is good either. Maybe something like 'Spartacus supported PIE/paedophilia in issues 1978, 1980, 1981 etc' could be include, with a hatnote on each year with the relevant quote, thus keeping the information on the page but making the main body less list-like?
:I also divided the article into sections by editor to draw a clear distinction between Stamford and later editors and made it clear the latter distanced themselves from him. Not sure if my wording could be improve to emphasise this point more clearly. As for splitting off the info into a separate Stamford article, this is a possibility, though there is little information of Stamford himself and the only noteworthy thing he did was to create this magazine, so not sure if it is worth it. WisDom-UK (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Find reliable non-primary sources and use them to build content. And with NPOV. Gleeanon 19:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wiki policy allows use of primary sources in the manner used here. The material is supported by newspapers etc. I have presented it as factually as I can, however there is no NPOV when it comes to child abuse. If you have concerns over specific wordings I am happy to discuss.WisDom-UK (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I personally think that the hatnote on each year with the relevant quote in the reference seems like a good idea. --Mondodi (talk) 21:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The content was almost exclusively sourced to the guide itself as proof. Instead present secondary reliable sources to make that case. If the contested information isn’t in reliable secondary sources, especially after so many years, then it likely has no place on Wikipedia. Gleeanon 21:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, the PIE links are mentioned in a number of the press reports given to this article, which are reliable secondary sources (I can't access them all). My problem is that the (imo) excessive primary-source quoting in the article gives undue prominence. And although I disagree with the way the information is presented, I don't think we should be edit warring over this. --Mondodi (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Use the press reports to support, assuming they are reliable sources, to lead the content, not our WP:Original research.One of the main problems with relying on primary sources, just as you have noted, is that it gives undue POV to one aspect of a subject.Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs, and that’s exactly what WisDom-UK has stated they’re doing.I suggest WisDom-UK to post proposed text here on this contested content with reliable secondary sources to gain consensus BEFORE restoring. If consensus is not gained then it needs to stay out. Gleeanon 04:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

text: Wisdom, you claim “clear-cut proof from multiple sources” yet the vast majority of all of this was to your original research of the guide itself. That is not acceptable for an encyclopedia. Please present reliable secondary sources for everything you wish to restore per our WP:Verifiability pilar or it will be removed again. Gleeanon 14:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

text: Do what you want with the page - I don't care anymore. This, and several other recent editing wars over bias I've been unfortunately involved in, have convinced me to finally leave this tired, declining site. Have fun whitewashing the past of things you don't like. WisDom-UK (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits