Talk:Campaign for Homosexual Equality

message: I see there's no disucssion here, so I'm just letting whoever know that I jiggled some words around and created some section headings, re-ordered by time-line, and suggseted a possible merge of material into here on the 1974 rally. Mish (talk) 14:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: start talk

message: Apparently no longer in existence or a registered charity. Shall hunt details and amend page appropriately. Kay Dekker (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: National Friend

message: It seemed to make little sense to have a section "Activities post 2000" separated from the rest of the chronological story by the items about Friend and publications, so I've moved this part further up, added some headings, and also added some further information about more recent events.--rossb (talk) 09:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-structuring 

message: My properly sourced edits of this and other related articles are being reverted by a fellow Wikipedian, whose argument for similar reverts of contributions of other users is mostly "Make your case on talk".  Please advise if you concur that such edits be removed, as I am convinced that they are encyclopedic and not even WP:BRD. Thank you. Zezen (talk) 23:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to read WP:WEIGHT ----Snowded TALK 04:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I support Snowded's removal of Zezen's additions. The PIE issue has been blown up by some of the press but is of extremely marginal relevance to the history of CHE, whose position on the age of consent was always crystal clear, viz. as long as the heterosexual age of consent was 16, so should be the homosexual age of consent. CHE occasionally expressed support for PIE's right to freedom of speech but never for its policies. -- Alarics (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

text: Clearly from that Guardian article the 1975 CHE conference was divided, but the resolution quoted is criticising the conference committee over how much time should have been devoted to discussion of the issue, not supporting PIE's policies themselves. CHE policy (which was certainly NOT drafted by Keith Hose) was consistently for a homosexual age of consent of 16 so as to be EQUAL with heterosexuals (there is a clue in the organisation's name). PIE wanted a much lower age, or even no age of consent at all. It is therefore absolutely wrong to say that "CHE backed PIE". -- Alarics (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the way in which  has added these facts does give undue weight to PIE, and some of the sources mentioned only mention the PIE–CHE link in passing. However, CHE's stance on paedophilia and child sexual abuse does seem notable enough to be included in the article, IMO, considering the sources given in Zezen's edit. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 19:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that it is worth mentioning. CHE was supporting PIE's freedom of speech, not its views. It is not a significant aspect of CHE's history. -- Alarics (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate all of your responses. Indeed, I may be wrong that PIE members was influential in drafting CHE resolutions in the long run: yet it happened at least once. Once again, despite what you, Alarics, claim, CHE for years campaigned for age of consent as low as 12, "in cases where a defendant could prove the existence of meaningful consent.", see http://buddybuddy.com/consent.html#chart and Age of consent reform for more sources. Zezen (talk) 19:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the resolution drafted by Keith Hose at the 1975 conference was, as the Guardian article makes clear, merely about the conference committee's decision as to how much time the conference should spend discussing PIE. It was nothing to do with CHE's policy. As for buddybuddy.com, it cites no source for its claim. I don't think the Draft Bill on which CHE was campaigning for law reform included the provision mentioned, and we would need to see proof that that was official CHE policy, which I doubt. It is most certainly not the case that "CHE for years campaigned for age of consent as low as 12". -- Alarics (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

text: Agreed completely. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 13:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that CHE didn't have a "stance on PIE" except to uphold its right freedom of speech. It had a stance on the age of consent, which was that it should be 16. -- Alarics (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, but the PIE attempted to steer the group towards pro-paedophile activism. Seems relevant to include it here, albeit very briefly. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 15:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

text: There is a consensus (which I agree with) to mention it briefly or "very briefly".   There is no agreement (the opposite in fact) to a whole section which appears to try and make a 'point'.  One of the editors you count as support says very specifically "the way in which Zezen has added these facts does give undue weight to PIE".  So you were not correct to restore your edit intact so I have reverted them.   I have crafted a brief section on 'controversies' when mentions the material but does not take one stance to in effect pillory CHE which is what you were doing.  Partial statements may well have sourced, but our goal here is be balanced and show due weight.   By the way three for and two against is not a consensus either, its a very small majority and wikipedia is not a democracy so it doesn't work on voting.  You also need to stop making silly accusations against other editors who disagree with you ----Snowded TALK 06:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverting sourced statement

message: (Active RfC tag was here, removed)
My newest contribution (discoveries of additional cases of CHE->PIE support) has been reverted, with argument of WP:WEIGHT again. See the talk section above, where we had reached consensus to leave the gist (the refs) of my previous similar contributions. The RfC is thus as follows:
 Should the newest historical cases of such actions and support be also mentioned (as has been the case therein after reaching the previous consensus) or completely removed for the reason(s) given by the other editor? 
Zezen (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Should the Controversies section mention more cases of CHE's support for PIE or only few? 

message: Thank you for your votes. You convinced me it is not that notable. I close this RfC hereby.  Zezen (talk) 05:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closure 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Campaign for Homosexual Equality. 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/20110616060553/http://www.petertatchell.net/outrage/outrageindex.htm to http://www.petertatchell.net/outrage/outrageindex.htm
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 18:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Campaign for Homosexual Equality. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://spotlightonabuse.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/g26875.jpg
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://spotlightonabuse.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/paedotalks.jpg
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://spotlightonabuse.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/g240977.jpg
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 12:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Campaign for Homosexual Equality. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://spotlightonabuse.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/g26875.jpg
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://spotlightonabuse.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/paedotalks.jpg
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://spotlightonabuse.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/g240977.jpg
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070618035533/http://www.lse.ac.uk:80/library/archive/Default.htm to http://www.lse.ac.uk/library/archive/Default.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Campaign for Homosexual Equality. 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/20100708231148/http://www.londonfriend.org.uk/history/ to http://www.londonfriend.org.uk/history/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lse.ac.uk/library/archive/Default.htm
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) 20:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Campaign for Homosexual Equality. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://spotlightonabuse.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/g26875.jpg
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://spotlightonabuse.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/paedotalks.jpg
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://spotlightonabuse.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/g240977.jpg
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080611051323/http://www.manchester.gov.uk/site/scripts/documents_info.php?documentID=398 to http://www.manchester.gov.uk/site/scripts/documents_info.php?documentID=398
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509155319/http://www.gaymonitor.co.uk/chehistory1.htm to http://www.gaymonitor.co.uk/chehistory1.htm
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) 00:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article has a vast number of issues in regards to unreliable sources and in many cases information added that did not match the source cited, the article has been reworded using independent reliable sources. It is a major edit, it can be built upon using sourced material. Use of a source commissioned and controlled by the same organisation the article is about is not independent, this especially applies to statements that were present intended to lead the reader to believe this was a far bigger and influential organisation than it was. It is of questionable notability and a case can be made for article deletion.  At this stage a bold edit was required and undertaken, there are still issues within the article and it would benefit from building up once more sources can be found. The organisations support of Paedophiles and child abusers was known fact, people and other organisations distanced themselves on that becoming known. I would like to hear the case for notability   --Pennine rambler (talk) 01:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreliable Sources