Talk:Ken Mehlman

message: How about saying:
:Activist and blogger John Arovosis says Mehlman should be outed if he is gay because “Mehlman has already said publicly that the gay issue is fair game for politics. If it is fair game, then the same rules apply to him.” []
Apparently there is some attempt being made to disparage Mehlman or to protest his appointment as RNC head or to tear up the anti-homosexuality plank in its party platform - or maybe a bit of all three.
Does anyone know how often reporters (or others) keep bringing the question up? Are there any other politicians who refuse / have refused to talk about their sex life? 
What I'm getting at is that refused to answer whether he's gay does not sound encyclopedic.
Here's another possibility:
*Mehlman has been asked repeatedly about his sexuality since Date X, and Group Y argues that his refusal supports Position Z.
Thus Wikipedia would not be taking sides for him (saying he doesn't have to answer) or against him (taking him to task for refusing). Uncle Ed 19:03, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
:My response to the above:
:#I would argue again that the "activist and blogger" form by itself begs credibility and notability in the case of Arovosis and seems to me a backdoor to introduction speculation.
:#I agree entirely that "refused to answer" is unencyclopedic.
:#I'm less concerned with the implications of Mehlman being gay than establishing that this is a real possibility in the first place, although it think it may be fair to raise the issue if you make it clear that there is no evidence (e.g. "Absent any unambiguous evidence, various groups have speculated on his sexual orientation for their own purposes. For example...") and go on to trace existing analyses of the demonstrable interests that appear to be served in encouraging such speculation. For similar reasons and in a similar way, wikipedia has reported on the rumours of lascivious adultery that the French occasionally spread about the foreign queens they didn't like (e.g. Marie Antoinette) or Catherine the Great's demise while having sex with a horse.
:#At the end of the day, I see no basis for wikipedia accepting in any way endorsing the implication that he is gay (as I've already said that there is no unambiguous evidence; citing his lack of marriage, one could argue that he is married to his job, as Elizabeth I of Britain often said she was married to her people). We can discuss speculation as speculation, but that's not what's been proposed as an edit thus far. I also have yet to see any genuinely penetrating analysis of the speculation made about Mehlman, so I'm not sure how to avoid original research of this matter. The Washington Blade article cited below is something quite different and accordingly seems insufficient to discuss this matter.
:Those are my thoughts for the time being. Buffyg 20:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reporting the controversy 

message: Never been married/Bachelor seems to make no difference. Could one side or the other in this idiotic dispute come to talk and explain? Hipocrite - «Talk» 05:09, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is indeed "six of one, half dozen of the other." however, bachelor is shorter, and it has the nice advantage that the article on the word contains the phrase "a euphemism for a homosexual man" as one of the definitions for the word. So why not stick with bachelor? --Asbl 21:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, shorter is a plus, but I don't think that a Victorian antiquity has any relevence.Hipocrite - «Talk» 02:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Mehlman's marriagability [sic] has not been verified. Bachelor -> Marriageable, and Wikipedia shouldn't contain unverified statements
What remains unspoken are criteria for verification of his marriageability (other than his being married). As the OED would have it, marriageability refers to "fitness" to be married, most frequently referencing age. If this is an extension of the nonsense of not knowing whether he is straight until he has a wife and kids (recalling of course that one does find gay men married with children), let's note that there are places that Mehlman can go to get married if it turns out that he's gay, so marriageability would be a nonsensical criteria if people want to argue that we don't yet know his gender object preference. As it is, I would have to argue that Mehlman, straight or queer, is a bachelor and marriageable according to conventional usage, which is sufficient for purposes of wikipedia. Buffyg 11:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Again, the definition of marrieagability does not require any current intent. In the case of the priest, the vow of celibacy rather than the intent to marry is the substantial impediment. Buffyg 09:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bachelor 

message: *Mehlman is heavily criticized for not answering direct questions and for distributing misleading and false information.
Criticized by whom for not answering which questions? And for what misleading information? Assertions like this really need more detail, and a source. -Willmcw 23:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heavily criticized 

message: It was a nice try for Anon 206.195.19.43 to put the hypocracy context, but I'm afraid we have to leave it out.
# It's POV since we can't actually name someone who has made this charge
# Can't put this in the personal section. This would be politics.
--Asbl 21:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Attempt to put context

message: Mehlman's outing was apparently a big story at one point yet there is no mention of it in the article.  It deserves discussion as it relates to the Republican gay mafia.
:Censored item: 
::Mehlman has been repeatedly asked if he is gay but has refused to answer .
I'm confused about why his rumored homosexuality is worthy of encyclopedic inclusion (yes, Wiki editors, you can cite your sources for these RUMORS).  Sen. Barbara Mikulski is also WIDELY rumored to be gay, yet no mention is made in her article.
There is an underlying agenda afoot here.  Since Republicans reportedly have an "anti-gay" agenda, any hint of hypocrisy must be clobbered over the reader's head.  Perhaps the Mehlman article should expand the note on being gay with a preface, such as, "Since the Republican Party is staunchly opposed to homosexuals, it is worthy to mention that Mehlman is rumored to be gay."206.195.19.45 18:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's just that--a rumor.  Wikipedia isn't in the practice of reporting "rumors."  There was significant discussion about this issue just a few months ago and a consensus was reached.--Brian Brockmeyer 22:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a rumor - it is a widely-reported question that Mehlman has dodged. We have several sources for it. It is entirely appropriate to say that he has been asked and declined to answer. -Willmcw 03:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Again, no rumor is being reported. The report is on his answer to questions about his orientation. Those questions are not rumors, they have been properly reported. -Willmcw 21:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This information seems properly sourced to me. Please stop removing it; there's a clear consensus for its inclusion. · Katefan0(scribble) 03:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there's not.  This was the subject of a months-long discussion before (have you actually read the discussion page?) and sentiment was that being asked an invasive personal question and refusing to answer on principle does not warrant exclusion.  Please stop trying to force baseless innuendo into this article.Flavius Aetius 03:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I'd also point out that consensus is not forever-binding. New people emerge, old people fall away, and sometimes in the meantime new information comes to light or public opinions might change.  Regardless of the how's or why's, judging from the edit history on this particular paragraph, there seems to be quite a bit of consensus at the moment for including the information. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to add, though, that I'm more than happy to discuss ways that this information might be incorporated.  Perhaps there's another way to reference the information, other than the way we're doing it.  But it seems like it should be mentioned in some fashion.  Brian, do you have another idea? · Katefan0(scribble) 21:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Flavius Aetius has repeatedly referenced a consensus reached in the discussion above.  I have now read through the discussion and I see no consensus having been reached, particularly not one that would lead to simply removing all reference to the issue.  I respectfully submit that the issue was never decided with finality -- if I'm mistaken someone please point me to the portion of the discussion where that was decided.  Currently the consensus seems to be to retain the information in some form.  Do you have an alternate wording that would be more palatable to you? · Katefan0(scribble) 17:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: That's inaccurate, Asbl. We couldn't even manage to disagree properly with respect to Mehlman because your injection of personal remarks via partisan rhetoric displaced that topic. I refused further discussion of the merits because you refused to discuss the matter on those terms. I noticed you even went so far as to revert my strike-through of your attacks. I deprecate your views with respect to any previous consensus for your refusal to show good faith and behave with civility, as you contributed on a basis that would appear to preclude consensus. Buffyg 23:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: A consensus WAS reached.  You were the only one remaining obstinate and trying to force it into the article in the face of numerous editors who opposed.  As for the current situation, there have been numerous reverts by multiple editors over the past month whenever someone has decided to try and sneak their agenda into the article and disturb the status quo.  That hardly qualifies as a "consensus" for inclusion.  The consensus from the previous discussion has not been overriden by any new consensus.  There's nothing encyclopedic here.  It stays out.Flavius Aetius 02:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As can be seen in the current edit war, your statements fall far short of reality. Grazon's edits stayed for well over a month. --Asbl 02:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And the edits before that, excluding mention of the rumour in one form or another, stayed for over a month-and-a-half before Grazon got in under the radar.  Do you have a point?  Apparently not.Flavius Aetius 02:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever happened a few months ago, the matter is being discussed now. Mehman's orientation is a common topic of discussion. Why shouldn't we include a mention of the controversy, along with his response? -Willmcw 04:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Absolutely there is an issue here. He is the chair of an anti-gay party. If he is gay, then he is a hypocrite. The fact that he refuses to answer whether he is gay is therefore newsworthy. Had he denied being gay, then you would have been correct to say that there is no "fact or issue here". However, not answering the question increases speculation, which is fair game given that the anti-gay agenda is an integral part of the party which he chairs. --Asbl 17:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I understand your objection is that it is a rumor. However our reporting focuses on what happened - that he's been asked and refuses to answer a direct question, one which, while personal, is also a related to his party's political platform. And it's a matter which is widely discussed. -Willmcw 23:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I take issue with the contention that it's "widely discussed" as well. Two of the three cites given come from the Washington Blade, the other from a gay rights group. Not exactly CNN or the New York Times. Perhaps if this was a topic in the mainstream media or being hotly discussed in any other respectable outlet it would warrant a mention, but it's not. Instead, it's nothing more than a baseless rumor propagated by a few gay activists, and to include it here is simply to indulge in gossip, not encyclopedic reporting.Brian Brockmeyer 00:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Type "Ken Mehlman" into Google and see what you get- half of the references involve questions about his orientation. "Working for Change" isn't a gay site. See also . None of those are gay sites, and Harpers is certainly a mainstream source. -Willmcw 01:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but with the exception of the Austin Chronicle, none of those are "mainstream" media (and lest we forget, this is the same publication that ran with the outrageously false "story" that Governor Rick Perry was gay).  And "Working for Change" is a self-identified progressive site.  What's next, quoting Rush Limbaugh and the National Review?Brian Brockmeyer 01:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Harpers magazine is a very mainstream news source. Progressive sites are sites too, and that doesn't mean their opinions are worthless. World News Daily, while not mainstream, has a very different perspective.  And just because a newspaper has ben wrong on one matter doesn't mean they are invalid over all. I think that the number of legitimate webistes (not blogs) and publicatoins which mention the questions about his orientation makes it a clear matter for a biography. -Willmcw 01:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: No response? Just more reverting? -Willmcw 21:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm a little confused.  You dismiss Harper's as a source because it can't be trusted as to whether or not Mehlman is gay.  But it doesn't say whether Mehlman's gay, it says he's repeatedly refused to answer the question -- exactly as does the information you are seeking to exclude from this article. If the WP article says "Mehlman has repeatedly refused to answer questions about his sexuality," and the Harper's article says precisely that... why isn't that a good enough source?  I don't understand.  The information in question isn't passing judgement on the answer to that question.  If you'd rather just have the information say "Some feel Mehlman's political enemies foment gay rumors," (or something approaching that) and use the Village Voice as a source, we can do that too.  What's the wording you prefer? · Katefan0(scribble)/my ridiculous poll 04:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I share the same confusion. Many sources that are mainstream, right wing, and  progressive (not to mention the countless blogs and forums), have talked about the controversy. I think that the way we are summarizing those sources is very restrained. There is no "gossip" here - no one is saying that he's been seen dating Mr. X. Because his party (and he is the chairman of the party) has notable positions on issues relating to gay men his status is not irrelevent. Is there a way that we could word it differently that would satisfy everyone? -Willmcw 05:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I think our text does not go beyond the Harpers citation. There are eight other citations provided as well. How would you summarize them, Buffyg? -Willmcw 03:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Harpers may have made a bit of a leap, but that doesn't disqualify it as a source for him not answering the question. The information we've suggested doesn't pass judgment, even if Harper's does. However, it can still be used as a substantiating source that he's been asked the question repeatedly and has not answered. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 21:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That completely misses the point I'm trying to make. The existence of a "Republican gay mafia" is not a matter of fact; it is a matter of supposition and hypothesis, however potent. I see that the edit box is now followed immediately by the statement, "Content must not violate any copyright and must be based on verifiable sources." It may be verifiable that there are widespread rumours, discussed on both the right and the left, about Mehlman's sexual orientation. None of these rumours has been substantiated, but it is easy to verify via sources like Harper's that this fact is treated as a virtual given although it is not a matter of record. If you want to cite Harper's or virtually any other source, you need to account for that gap. We can see from Willmcw that the hypothesis of a "Republica gay mafia" is tantalising: "Because his party (and he is the chairman of the party) has notable positions on issues relating to gay men his status is not irrelevent." This, I would argue, is more relevant yet and must be accounted for. (And, incidentally, I've heard nothing more than facile suggestion on the matter of the contradictions inherent in this imputed hypocrisy.) Perhaps an article on the Republic gay mafia hypothesis is what's really missing, allowing brief summary here to refer to a reasonably more thorough treatment of a complex issue? I've said it before: at the moment, this is at the level of the promiscuous cuckoldry of French queens and the bestiality of Catherine the Great, all of which have been well analysed. Buffyg 00:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: In any case, I do think I've commented expansively about that I reckon is prerequisite to mentioning these rumours. Perhaps it would be easier if I were to ask you to clarify where I lose you? Buffyg 01:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You lose me where you say "mentioning rumors". We aren't mentioning any rumors. We're posting a verifiable quotation from the subject. -Willmcw 02:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: But shortly after the gay Kristallnacht in November, when the passage of 11 state-wide anti-gay ballot initiatives helped to re-elect George Bush, rumors began to swirl around former White House political director and current RNC chief Ken Mehlman – rumors that Mehlman studiously avoids addressing, and that other prominent Republicans refused to discuss on the record (at least until GQ magazine came knocking).
The Village Voice calls this "gossip". Worldnetdaily.com only references Mehlman in quotation marks. The quotation would not appear noteworthy unless the question appears credible and relevant. The article does little to establish the context of the question being answered, so one ought not be surprised that reference to the answer is contentious. By way of analogy: some nut with a press pass could ask the President whether there were aliens walking amongst us, diguised as humans. The President might reply that there is no reason to believe such a hypothesis. Absent information about why people believe in UFOs, there isn't much point in referencing such an exchange. Now, the analogy might break down because it is a far more admissible hypothesis that Mehlman may be gay than that we have "visitors," but both remain hypothetical and predicated on rumours. If you don't account for that, you aren't presenting significant operative distinctions. Buffyg 10:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel like we're talking past each other.  The information we're discussing adding only addresses the fact that he's refused to answer questions.  You seem to be arguing against adding that information because the sources go farther, but to me that's a specious argument.  We are only summarizing, in this article, the portion referenced in those sources having to do with his refusing to answer the question.  That these sources go farther doesn't invalidate that information and is really irrelevant to what we're suggesting should be added.  They're only being used as a source for the portion we're suggesting -- that the question has been asked, and left unanswered, repeatedly. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 15:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, I am not necessarily averse to treating the issue in more detail, and I've never said anything like that, but I thought opponents of the inclusion of any information at all might take issue with that idea.  As for more context, what would you suggest?  I'm open to any ideas. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 18:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about an article on the Republican gay mafia myth, the evidence used to adduce its existence, and its verifiable and imputed roles? Buffyg 08:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no reference to being [[Gay]]? 

message: I hope that with the addition of the NAACP apology, this will put to rest my critics' suspicions that I have some sort of an Anti-Mehlman or Pro-Gay agenda. 
I was hoping this would have been achieved when I helped incorporate the sexual orientation story into the Barbara Mikulski article, but apparently it was not.
I have absolutely no agendas other than helping expand Wikipedia. I have contributed to articles about both Left Wing as well as Right Wing politicians and activists. --Asbl 22:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NAACP Apology

message: Buffyg,
*The location of your response makes following the discussion impossible, which is why I opened up this section.
*Let's not rehash the long discussion. We agreed to disagree: Both on the content of the article and whether my statements constituted a personal attack on you. I recommend you drop it, and move on with your life, just like I did not make a big deal and demand an apology for calling my arguments "bunk".
You now have a new set of people with whom to have endless and pointless arguments. Have fun. I will not take part in it. --Asbl 06:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This response is risible. Your reference to my "bunk" remark is pure obfuscation and has already been addressed as such. I addressed an argument as an argument ("bunk"), while you attacked me as a person ("right wing hack", "Fox News liberal"). If arguments are about offering, upholding, or effacing distinctions, you resort here to the last, which is painfully consistent with our previous exchange. Having done little else than offer distinctions, I have nothing to apologise for in that regard and would challenge you to cite a Wikipedia policy or guideline that says otherwise. Your remark that we agreed to disagree was about something quite different than the matter that ought to have been at hand -- it was about the obligations of the civility policy and the definition of personal attacks rather than about anything in the article. I regret to say that under these circumstances I must thank you for declining further participation. 09:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Respose to Buffyg

message: The accounts involved in this sock check  (Flavius Aetius, Brian Brockmeyer, and possibly some anon IPs) tag-team edited here, just wanted to post this to alert those involved in the earlier disputes on this page. They are all sockpuppets. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 18:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also gathered some evidence, refer to .--Ichiro 18:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI 

message: I agree that the open letter to Ken Mehlman written by Alexander S. Peak does not belong as an external link in Ken Mehlman's article because it is written as general complaints about the republican party, and not about how Ken Mehlman runs the republican party (i.e. it would have been written to any person who happened to be the chair of the Republican party at the time). In addition, with all due respects to Mr. Peak, He is not noteworthy enough that his dissatisfaction with Mehlman deserves a link. --Asbl 15:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Open Letter to Mehlman by Alexander S. Peak

message: Hello; the Mediation Committee has accepted the request for mediation on the article Ken Mehlman. I will be happy to help out here; please see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ken Mehlman for further information. Thank you! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation accepted 

message: I added a line about his possibly being gay because I've heard it several times now on the radio. 
I've heard the rumor enough times that I got curious, so I checked it out on Wikipedia. But there was no reference, which seems like a clear ommision. 
So, I added it. And it was removed, supposedly, because mentioning the controversy is supposedly biased. 
But just mentioning that there _IS_ a controversy is _NOT_ biased!  For example, in the Clinton Wikipedia entry, there is mention of the rumors about Gennifer Flowers. It's not biased to just mention the controversy, whether you believe it happened or not! (Personally, it seemed like a smear campaign to me.) But to not mention of Gennifer Flowers is to not fully report on Clinton. 
Similarly, to not mention persistent rumors of homosexuality is to not fully report on Mehlman.
Personally, I couldn't care less if Mehlman gay. But the persistent rumors of his homosexuality is a genuine controversy and should be mentioned. (Or, to be fair, omit references to rumors about Clinton.)
:Calan, there's already a line about this issue in the Personal section of the article.  Makgraf 19:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's not a bias to point out that there's a controversy! 

message: Bill Maher shocked Larry King on Wednesday night by mentioning what has only been rumored in Washington for years: Mehlman is (allegedly) a homosexual. “I never heard that,” Larry King responded. Maher says: “You don’t go to the same bathhouse I do.” ... it seems THIS incident can be included in the wiki article ... so someone expound on it properly.
:I don't see why... we mention there have been rumours about it before.  Why do we need to talk about Ben Maher saying it too, I mean, we don't talk about Wonkette putting up pictures of him dancing and saying he's gay.  Makgraf 20:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bill Maher on Larry King

message: Hi. I have absolutely no knowledge about Mr Mehlman and frankly, I don't give a damn about him. However, I did merge back Ken Mehlman/references to the main article. There's absolutely no point in having a separate subpage for references on a specific topic. Either people here believe this is significant enough to discuss in the article (in which case it should be properly referenced with fully detailed references appearing in the main article) or it's not significant in which case the references are simply unnecessary. Pascal.Tesson 00:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References about being/not being gay 

message: I have incorporated the references into the text as much as I can, using the <ref> function, however, some of the numbered refs did not appear to correspond to numbers in the text, and at least one number in the text does not appear to have a reference listed. DuncanHill 21:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: I restored the content removed which was seveal big chunks - I think it's better to discuss them rather just delete them because they are sourced and discuss Mehlman. Hekerui (talk) 07:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed content

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Ken Mehlman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071021062341/http://www.munimae.com:80/aboutMuniMae/directors.html to http://www.munimae.com/aboutMuniMae/directors.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Ken Mehlman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100829092828/http://www.kkr.com:80/team/team_senior_members.cfm%20Kenneth%20B.%20Mehlman to http://www.kkr.com/team/team_senior_members.cfm%20Kenneth%20B.%20Mehlman
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ken Mehlman. 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/20070928003828/http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=6237 to http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=6237
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) 05:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Ken Mehlman. 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/20140222205720/http://www.mvc-dc.com/index.php/the-team/108-bruce-mehlman to http://www.mvc-dc.com/index.php/the-team/108-bruce-mehlman
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120909104249/http://www.gaypolitics.com/2010/08/25/breaking-victory-fund-responds-to-former-rnc-chairmans-coming-out/ to http://www.gaypolitics.com/2010/08/25/breaking-victory-fund-responds-to-former-rnc-chairmans-coming-out/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222132342/http://www.lgbtqconferenceatharvard.org/speakers.html to http://www.lgbtqconferenceatharvard.org/speakers.html
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) 23:53, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified