Talk:PinkNews

message: Editor Zaalbar recently removed the reference to "equal" marriage rights, making it just "marraige rights". However equal/equality is the language used, including in the source, so I'm restoring it. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 18:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: An IP editor has made a similar edit, changing "marriage equality" to "same sex marriage". However, both the Tatchell and Pink News source refer to marriage equality. The difference is important, because the campaign was also about opening civil partnerships to heterosexuals. Thus the equality went in both directions - "same sex marriage" does not accurately describe the objectives. I am retaining the term same-sex in describing Stonewall's revised policy, because they refused to support civil partnerships for heterosexuals (according to the source) and threfore in that context it is accurate. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I was in two minds to revert or leave it. The poll and argument was for "equal" marriage, not just a marriage bill for the bare bones. We still don't have equal marriage, just a marriage bill with baby steps and so i support the changes made by Hamiltonstone. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 13:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equal marriage rights 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on PinkNews. 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 http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20130102223741/http%3A//www.c4em.org.uk/ to http://www.c4em.org.uk/
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) 04:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Somebody tagged for WP:COI. I have removed this as there was nothing to indicate where they think the COI lies. It seemed more like a vague, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, allegation of bias than a genuine claim that any of the specific editors here have an actual conflict of interests. If there is reason to suspect that there is a genuine COI issue here then we can discuss that. What we can't discuss are vague allegations that boil down to "Somebody did a bad thing but I won't say who or what. You must guess what I am talking about and counter every possible claim that I might have made but didn't.". These are not productive and we will not be wasting our time by indulging those. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  COI tag? 

message: While I have no issue with the subject of the article, I couldn’t help but notice that over half of the references are from PinkNews themselves.
Additionally, some of the other references, aside from BBC News, The Guardian, The Independent, and GOV.uk, appear to be questionable sources for an encyclopedic article.
I sincerely mean no trouble and have zero intention of making any changes to the article — I only bring this up in order to help improve the article.
MiddleAgedBanana (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of independent sources