Talk:Gay agenda/Archive 3

message: I archived off much of this page to Archive 2. David L Rattigan 15:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive

message: DavidBailey, you seem to be reverting with no regard to this entire discussion thread or the consensus reached. It really is not fair to go in making major changes while a discussion of this nature is still taking place.
No one has been able to find an indisputable occurrence of "homosexual agenda" that is not being used as a rhetorical term to negatively characterize the gay rights movement. Why is there a problem with acknowledging that "homosexual agenda" is a POV term and concept? David L Rattigan 22:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the other users involved in this discussion can please confirm that I've not misread this discussion (in assuming that we'd reached some sort of consensus with the above edit), I will revert. David L Rattigan 22:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So let me get this right. You're going to revert all of my edits because you disagree on the removal of one word? DavidBailey 22:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You replaced the entire opening paragraph, not one word. David L Rattigan 22:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I have to agree. I see many more edits than the removal of one word.  CovenantD 22:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm aware I edited more than one word. You asked me to improve the article. I attempted to do so. You are objecting to the removal of one word. Are you planning to object to all of the other edits as well? If not, please don't revert all of them. If so, why? DavidBailey 22:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your first edit was a wholesale reversion to a completely different opening paragraph, one which had an entirely different slant to that which we (I think) have agreed here by consensus. David L Rattigan 22:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, rhetoric has the connotation that it is just a phrase and typically untrue. That is why I object to it. It's biased. I think earlier versions were more neutral in its explanation. DavidBailey 22:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I quite agree.  If we're going to say "can be considered offensive," then we have to show how and when it "can be considered not offensive," which we're unlikely to be able to.  I can envision no scenario in which the term "homosexual agenda" might be used in a neutral or positive way.  Exploding Boy 22:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: [To DavidBailey] in that case you should have just changed the word rather than reverting wholesale to an earlier version. What would be a good word to reflect its POV nature other than "rhetorical"? Political? David L Rattigan 22:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Political is closer to being accurate, but perhaps not completely valid. There are those who oppose gay rights and who use the term to discuss the activities of those who support them. I have heard the term used, both personally, and in media, in a non-derogatory way that discusses this conflict. And it is not always used in a political sense. DavidBailey 01:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I've made some suggestions, above. Anybody want to look at them? Maybe get the focus back on improving the compromise version? CovenantD 22:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: If you would look at the history, it was not a revert. It was a step-by-step edit including descriptions of why I edited it. There are inaccuracies and POV wording that I was editing, as well as invalid links. DavidBailey 22:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, try again  CovenantD 22:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  Clearly there is no concensus. I do not like the current version but it is better than one you reverted previously. You should stop reverting.64.178.145.150 22:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll second that and please request that DavidBailey make no further changes but join the conversation here. It is unfair to make a string of changes when others such as myself are very patiently holding off making edits and trying to hash out the issues here in the discussion thread. David L Rattigan 23:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: This is untrue. I did not revert. I made several smaller edits explaining each one. If you disagree with an edit, please explain why. You wanted to follow the process of editing and discussion. I did so. Now you claim I am still reverting. I am not. If you dismiss my edits with a mass revert, you are doing what you claim to be trying to stop. DavidBailey 23:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: If you feel that I have violated WP:3RR, please submit a report. However, you will find that I have not been reverting. I have been editing, and certainly not stealthy, since I am announcing them both in the history and here. You are disagreeing with my edits, and you are trying to make me go away. It won't work. I was editing this article before you came along, and I will continue to work to make it balanced and fair. DavidBailey 23:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you keep denying it when there's ample proof that you did in fact revert?   It's this dishonesty that is hampering any ability to move forward. CovenantD 23:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can continue to show the links, but I am telling the truth. Look at the history. I did not revert. I did not copy and paste. I went to the edit page and made a series of minor and "major" edits. I described each one. DavidBailey 23:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: David, you yourself used the abbreviation rv when you described the edits...! David L Rattigan 23:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the first time. Then you said, "rv - please read the conversation from today - this version is the nearest we have got to a consensus - please improve on it rather than revert to earlier version" . So I responded, "Okay. Here goes.... It's not rhetoric." and made a series of non-revert edits. DavidBailey 23:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is this if not a revert? You changed the entire paragraph back to an older version with a completely different slant and wording. A rose by any other name... David L Rattigan 23:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That, my friend, was accidental. I must have clicked the wrong link to edit, or perhaps I clicked the middle button (I'm using Linux, which pastes the clipboard) inadvertantly. However, I see that CovenantD has decided to revert my entire efforts of the past hour, so what's the point? DavidBailey 23:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Edits that are made to fix bias and to improve an article are always acceptable according to Wikipedia policy. If you have a problem with my edit, I'd appreciate you discuss it rather than reverting wholesale. Unlike some, I am trying to improve the balance and content of the article, instead of skewing it to a pro/con view. DavidBailey 00:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. Please don't take it personally when I revert your revert. DavidBailey 00:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reversions

message: Presumably the homosexual agenda looks something like this:
# Approval of minutes of last meeting
# Management report
# Any other business
# Next meeting date
-- Karada 23:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for a bit of light relief! :¬D David L Rattigan 23:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homosexual agenda items?