Talk:Frank Pakenham, 7th Earl of Longford

message: I've removed :Category:Homophobia again for three reasons:
# He isn't homophobia
# Homophobia isn't central to who he is or what he did. See Category talk:Homophobia for consensus on how/wen the cat should be used. There's one paragraph about a homophobic comment he made at age 92 - hardly central to who he is.
# It isn't sourced at all.  If he really is a homophobe, that's controversial and should be well sourced.
Please comment here before reverting.  Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't support the category and the article should 1. have sections added and 2. fill in the context of his anti-gay campaigning. Benjiboi 15:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's only one paragraph detailing his homophobia, all about one remark he made in the House of Lords.  Unless he made many other statements in a similar vein, which should be documented, he doesn't compare to Anita Bryant, Fred Phelps, or Eric Rudolph. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I removed this category now. "His high-profile opposition to the gay rights movement" should be connected with his conservative ideas. The word "homophobia" has very negative overtone and this category should be added only in undisputed cases. Andrew18 @ 16:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That is just your opinion I'm afraid. The Merriam-Websters Dictionary defines the word "homophobia" as meaning "fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals". When used in the case of a Wiki category, it simply relates to any article where the subject is linked to the established definition of the word. It isn't used as a condemnation, its used simply as fact. Lord Longford's very high profile political and personal beliefs about homosexuality were what he was mostly known for in later life. I do agree that this particular part of his political life needs to be expanded with some decent sources added, but there is no WP:BLP issue because he is dead. 89.168.105.226 (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  We should not connect his later life statements with homofobia. If you have on your mind this sentence: "On the other hand, if some elderly, or not so elderly, schoolmaster seduced one of my sons and taught him to be a homosexual, he would ruin him for life. That is the fundamental distinction." you have to know, that the meaning of word "homofobia" came later that he had said that words. Wikipedia is not to judge person for his beliefs. In category "homofobia" there is no space for interpretations. We cannot pick a hole in one's coat "homofobic" in this case. The prerequisites are'nt enough strong to do it. Andrew18 @ 18:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Firstly, where the hell did you learn to spell? Secondly, it isn't just his comments that are at issue here, the fact is that Lord Longford had a lengthy history of voting against any kind of gay rights legislation. His comments about "some elderly schoolmaster seducing one of his sons" are really just the cherry on the cake, as it were. And you are wrong about the definition of homophobia changing since he made those comments. He said that in the late 1990s when homophobia was not a new word. It meant then what it means today. I agree that there is no space for interpretations about the homophobia category, but it appears that you are the one making your own interpretations. Homophobia refers to "fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals". Its not an interpretation, its a fact. Longford's personal and political beliefs and voting history more than meet the criteria.80.41.8.218 (talk) 03:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you want to put into this category every politician who "voting against any kind of gay rights legislation" you gonna pursue politics and some kind of political revenge. We dont make politic here. In my country main parties vote against any gay rights legislation. Do you think that they should be in category "homofobia"? If you want to typecasting people in this way you propably not go too far. Sorry for my spelling, I am not a native speaker. Andrew18 @ 10:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

text: There is a HUGE difference between someone who is simply not "pro-gay rights" and somebody who is "anti-gay rights". Longford falls into the latter category. He ACTIVELY campaigned against gay rights. He is certainly entitled to his opinion, but that does not stop it from being discriminatory. In the US, Anita Bryant is exactly the same. She actively campaigned against gay rights and she and her actions are widely considered to be homophobic. It is YOU who does not understand what this category is for. It's nothing to do with getting political revenge (I'm not even gay), it is to do with articles (including articles about people) who have a notable, high profile opposition to gay rights. If the government in your country do indeed vote against any kind of gay rights as you claim, then yes, it would appear that they are homophobic (homophobia means "fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals" - this is a Dictionary definition, not just my own opinion). If you click on the Homophobia category, it actually states at the top of the page what the category is used for. I would also suggest that if you do not have a good command of the English language, then you should refrain from editing the English Wikipedia.89.168.101.36 (talk) 13:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please. En.Wikipedia is not only for natives speakers. I understand every word you have said. But I don't agree with you at all. First: the definition of being in opposition to "gay rights" is watered down. If someone votes against legislation of gay marriages became a homofobic? Secondly: if you are trying to force your point of view under the IP account - please stop it. In category "Homofobia" should stay only persons who continuously attacked homosexual persons because of their orientacion. You make a politic. You bring in this case into sth like that: "who is against gay rights is a homofobic". If you want to look for deputies who has voted against gay marriage (for example) you will a lot in many countries. In my country neither of party support gay marriage. Do you want to put all polish deputies into category "homofobia"? Because they are against gay marriage? Please, dont do that. Andrew18 @ 20:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

text: You are entirely wrong about this and you seem to have trouble understanding what homophobia is, let alone being able spell it correctly. If someone is homophobic, it does not just mean that they go out physically attacking gay people. Yes, that is one example of homophobia, but it is not the only example. The dictionary definition of Homophobia is "fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals". I cannot say this enough to you but it doesn't seem to be sinking in. It doesn't have to be all three of these things, and it doesn't just refer to physically violent hate crimes either. If a person actively campaigns against gay rights (not just voting against gay marriage, but actively campaigning or speaking out against gay rights), then they are allowing themselves to be publicly identified as being discriminatory against gay people. This is defined as homophobia. Its discrimination based solely on somebody's sexuality. It doesn't matter if the person did it because of their religious beliefs, it is still homophobia. Lord Longford's opinions about homosexuality go way beyond just simple indifference towards gay people, it is one of the things he is most famous for. He called homosexuality "nauseating" and "utterly wrongful", said that gay people were "handicapped", and even implied that gay men who worked in schools were predatory paedophiles. If he had said that about black people and campaigned to deny them equal rights, it would be instantly classed as racist. If he said it about women and campaigned to deny them equal rights, it would be classed as sexist or misogynistic. It is equally discriminatory to say and do it about gay people - regardless of whether you agree with it or not. Furthermore, although the English Wikipedia welcomes anybody to edit it, you require a good level of English to be able to do it, which you clearly don't have.89.168.7.160 (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you had knew the Wikipedian rule you would have know that forcing point of view under the IP is a abuse. You are no right at all. Why? Do we have category :Category:Racist? It's retoric question, do not answer. Category "homofobia" should group only the main articles and for example "antihomofobic" protest marches. NOT PEOPLE who "could be homofobic". We are not here to judge. We write encyklopedia and do not punish for beliefs, religion, voting etc. If you think that Frank Pakenham was homofobic, it's stayed as your opinion. You just force your point of view, nothing more. Andrew18 @ 18:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Your english is so poor, it virtually destroys any point you are trying to make. It has already been pointed out to you (at great length) what the homophobia category is for, and how Lord Longford meets the criteria for inclusion in it. If you fail - or are refusing - to see that, that is your problem, and it you who is pushing a POV agenda here by refusing to acknowledge homophobia. I can only assume it is because you are homophobic yourself. The category stays. End of discussion. 80.41.6.96 (talk) 03:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are not a person who can judge people. You can not offend me, because you just pushing not neutral point of view under the IP and break Wikipedian rules. I also think my english is good enough, because you understand what I wrote. Nevertheless you can not stop forcing your POV. The method you represent is simple: "call everyone who don't agree with you as homofobic", there is no serious response for this so I gonna stop this discussion. Andrew18 @ 09:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

text: In order for the Homophobia category to apply, the subject has to be particularly noted for homophobia, which Lord Longford certainly was. According to the conversation above, Andrew18's view is that Lord Longford's "high-profile opposition to the gay rights movement should be connected with his conservative ideas". That is totally wrong from an encyclopedic standpoint as it is basically saying that people who are right-wing should be allowed to be homophobic without actually being referred to as homophobic simply because it is part of their beliefs. Sorry but that just won't work and we cannot give homophobia a new meaning just because some people are going to be offended by it. The category applies to Lord Longford because he was publicly known for his homophobia and he opposed gay rights to the very end of his life, much in the same way that Baroness Young did. The article details this and is adequately sourced. Looking through his edit history, I have noticed that Andrew18 is also removing the category from the All-Polish Youth article, which is an organisation that is blatantly homophobic. Sorry Andrew, but it seems you are indeed the one with the POV agenda here. MassassiUK (talk) 01:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What's this got to do with marriage? The relatively recent legal debacle on marriage between same sex couples came up some years after Lord Longford had died. And yes, if someone treats a gay person any less favourably than a heterosexual person just because of that fact, then that is homophobic discrimination. Your personal views on marriage are completely irrelevant here since this article is not about you. 88.104.29.189 (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

text: His record on the issue pretty much speaks for itself and as long as his opposition to gay rights is sourced (which it is) then it belongs in the article. We do not censor Wikipedia just because some details about a person can be unflattering. 88.104.29.189 (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homophobia cat 

message: :Image:The Outcast's Outcast.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 02:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:The Outcast's Outcast.jpg

message: I've removed the UK life peerage from the succession box.  Beside the point that it was a life peerage and therefore not succeeded to, life peerages do not appear to be enumerated in succession boxes (at least, not for Mrs. Thatcher, Lord Callaghan, Lord Williams of Mostyn, Baroness Jay, nor Denis Healey (nor Sir Alec Douglas-Home)).  For fosterity:
  
  
  
  
—Dah31 (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Baron Pakenham was a hereditary peerage as stated in the article and not a life peerage. He wasn't an Earl at the time, and was given a peerage so he could sit in the House of Lords himself. Life peerages weren't introduced until 1958, 13 years later. He was given a life peerage in 1999 as Baron Pakenham of Cowley. That's a separate title. Baron Pakenham was inherited by his son, along with the Earldom. JRawle (Talk) 16:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Succession box 

message: An image of Lord Longford (Ekabhishek (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image source

message: 'The age of consent for gay men was equalised at 16 in 2000.' makes no sense: one thing can be made equal to another, but a thing (standing on its own, so to speak) cannot be equalized. 31.52.253.108 (talk) 12:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equalised 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Frank Pakenham, 7th Earl of Longford. 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/20131212113539/http://www.kewsociety.org/sites/kewsociety.org/files/2006_spring.pdf to http://www.kewsociety.org/sites/kewsociety.org/files/2006_spring.pdf
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) 13:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Frank Pakenham, 7th Earl of Longford. 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  tag to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4159/is_200307/ai_n12742007
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090707190314/http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/0177/D.0177.195911120035.html to http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/0177/D.0177.195911120035.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) 09:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Frank Pakenham, 7th Earl of Longford. 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/20141127083101/http://www.newbridgefoundation.org.uk/about.html to http://www.newbridgefoundation.org.uk/about.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081209091843/http://www.bernardomahoney.com/keithbennett/articles/wmmnbfsdwaehe30ys.shtml to http://www.bernardomahoney.com/keithbennett/articles/wmmnbfsdwaehe30ys.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090707190314/http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/0177/D.0177.195911120035.html to http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/0177/D.0177.195911120035.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) 14:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This probably deserves a mention in the article
https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1972/nov/29/pornography-the-longford-report
http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/23rd-september-1972/7/the-longford-report
I was a bit surprised it wasn't already there. Andrewa (talk) 13:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, it is mentioned, in the lead and also in the section "Penal reform". I can't imagine any objections to you adding your links to the article. Blurryman (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Longford Report 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Frank Pakenham,. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 24#Frank Pakenham, until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Frank Pakenham," listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]