Talk:Equality Mississippi/Archive 1

NPOV

Well, I guess in a few minutes all the friends of the main editor will be here, and will threaten me with blocking and assusse me of being a gayhater. But nevertheless, how this section that is only supported by documents of one side of the dispute can be neutral is beyond me. The section only represents the viewpoint of one side, and completely neglects the POV of the other side. Surely if these conclicts are notable there must be some reporting in neutral sources, ie newspapers. Oh well, now I must be a gayhater and a vandal. 91.0.105.78 (talk) 13:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It does not contain any criticism because a Google News search of "Equality Mississippi" yields no results.  EJNOGARB  22:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Depends on which Google News search you use. This Google News search yields at least 39 hits. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 22:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Mississippi Map

I propose that the map below the organization's logo be removed, since it's superfluous. Opinions?  EJNOGARB  22:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The article is about an organization, albeit a defunct one, in Mississippi. The map points out to foreign users where Mississippi is. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 22:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not an issue I'd be willing to push. Still, other Mississippi articles like Mississippi State University and, I imagine, any article that isn't principally geographic, do not contain a map.  EJNOGARB  22:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

True, others don't have it. But no harm, no foul, no policy against. :] - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 23:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I would move it to the background section and tie it to the history of homophobia in the south and Mississippi itself. The infobox should focus on the group itself whereas the map doesn't really do that. -- Banjeboi 01:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Hello. This article recently came to my attention. I've tagged it as needing sources, since most of Founding and Notable events sections seem to be based only on the author's experience. Since I have no reason to doubt it's veracity, I've tried to find sources for that information on the net. For my disappointment, I couldn't fin non-trivial mentions of this organizaton on google.

I noted that this was nominated for deletion before, on the basis of lack of notability. It's strange how the deletion discussion evolved, coming to a keep without addressing the lack of notability. But that's another discussion. --Damiens.rf 14:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Since nothing has been done to fix this problem, I've tagged some of the unverifiable claims in the article with {{fact}}. --Damiens.rf 20:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You tagged "some"? Geez. And since there's a huge banner at the top that says the same thing, there's no need in the littering and trashing of the article as you did. Additionally, there's an OTRS permission on file for use of the content as it was from the original source, the org's web site. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 21:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Photo

I've replaced File:Gay rights marcher in Jackson Mississippi.jpg with File:Prop 8 gay rights rally in Jackson Mississippi.jpg in the article, since the former image is of low quality and currently subject to a deletion request on Commons. However, I'd like to note that I'm not aware of any direct evidence of Equality Mississippi being involved in either of the depicted protest events (though it's quite plausible that they were). Thus, it would be better to find a photo showing something indisputably connected with the organization. Alas, the fact that the organization is defunct and that their website seem to have disappeared almost without a trace (see, that's why you shouldn't block ia_archiver) may make this somewhat difficult. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Self reference

The words at the bottom of this article ( "This article incorporates text from numerous Equality Mississippi sources including press releases and it's now defunct web site, a publication now in the public domain and which OTRS permission has been provided") are a violation of WP:Self. Should be removed, unless there is an exceptionally good reason for it to be there. Born Gay (talk) 23:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:SELF is about using other Wikipedia articles or Wikipedia itself as a source. That isn't the case here. Additionally, the template exists for a reason. Further, there is an exceptionally good reason in that many of the original sources for the article are disappearing from their original web locations. It's quite proper to note to the reader this as well as where some of the content is coming from that can't be found today. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 01:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:SELF is mainly about Wikipedia referring to itself, especially unnecessary self-references, which is what this is. This is stuff that it's perfectly proper to mention on a talk page, but hardly in the article. Born Gay (talk) 03:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Born Gay that it is preferable to have this declaration on the talk page rather than within the body of the article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The section should be removed simply because it's a bit of unverifiable information trying to justify a cunch of unverifiable information in the article. --Damiens.rf 12:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• It's not unverifiable; it's just not available online. The press releases still exist. This is no different from stating that information comes from a public-domain book that is not available online. It needs to not be removed -- otherwise this would be plagiarism. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Books have ISBN's and are archived by the Library of Congress. That's why they are verifiable even when of line. This is not the case with EM's press releases. Also, PRs are primary sources, and not usable for sourcing the text about EM's "accomplishments". --Damiens.rf 13:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

  Not all books have ISBNs and not all are archived at the Library of Congress. There's nothing wrong with using a source that doesn't have an ISBN. Please do not keep removing sources from this article. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

  I'm sorry. Am I removing sources? --Damiens.rf 13:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

  Yes you are. Don't play dumb. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Open offer: I have no connection to Equality Mississippi, but I now have this page on my watchlist. If anyone has information or sourcing that they feel should be added to the article, but they don't want to add the information themselves for whatever reason, just list it here and (assuming its fair and sourced) I add the info to the article. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 12:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• User:Quadell asked my opinion about this matter. This particular template, here, is not necessary. OTRS validates the release of this material under GFDL and CC-BY-SA. Since the person who placed the text is the author of that external site and retains the right to do with the language as he pleases, the attribution template isn't needed; he has licensed it under GFDL by placing it here and confirming that he has authority to do so. He has attribution credit in the usual way, through the history of the article. Ordinarily, we use templates like {{GFDLSource}} when the material is drawn from a website created by somebody else and released under GFDL so that we satisfy the attribution requirement. In terms of verifiability, the reliability of these sources is not predicated on continued publication online. If they are reliable while the website is in existence, they are reliable when it no longer is. If they can be replaced with accessible sources, that's all to the better. If they can't, that doesn't mean they can't be used anymore. The general reliability of the sources for whatever they're being used to support might be a question for WP:RSN or WP:COIN, if contributors here can't agree. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I do have one concern to voice with this particular note: [1]. Aside from the fact that I agree that OTRS should not be named on the article (that's what the talk is for), the OTRS release is not for the website, but specifically for past press releases. It also doesn't verify PD, but only releases text under GFDL and CC-BY-SA. The contributor in question has verified his affiliation and is free to release the entire website under PD if he wants, but I don't think the article front is the place to do it. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, we only care that the text that is used verbatim from the source be freely licensed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:SELF seems clear enough that reference to OTRS and/or the talk page isn't appropriate within an article. I'm surprised and disappointed to see that someone readded that section, and did so without explanation. Born Gay (talk) 01:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources

Hi. The section Equality Mississippi and the American Family Association is about Equality Mississippi's disputes with American Family Association, and I read it as painting a bad picture of AFA and a "cool" picture of EM. I think it's highly inappropriate that all of this sections is based on "sources" published by EM. This should be fixed by presenting a balanced view of the AFA x EM relation based on independent third part publications. In the case it's not possible, I question if we should be publishing this. --Damiens.rf 17:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree that the template you've added makes the article better. There is already a template at the top of the page requesting additional references, so there's no need for a redundant template here. I also think that, since you've been criticized for overtemplating this article, that you should avoid adding templates to it. If what you want is to blank that section, then let's discuss that. If what you want is to add better sources... why don't you just add them? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with FisherQueen...if you want sources, add them. Don't template. It is easy to throw 20+ templates on a page (which is beginning to look like harrassment of an article and user), but it is just as easy to source an article. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 17:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said back in May, I don't add sources because I can't find them. This org is not notable and maybe we just can't write relevant tertiary information about it. The tags are not supposed to "make the article better", that was silly. The tags are intended to point out problems, both to editors and occasional readers. --Damiens.rf 17:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

When the page is riddled with tags it isn't making the article any better, it is making it worse. See what I have done here. Can't read it can you? Can't read the article either because of your tag/template harrassment. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 17:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Chill down, and don't disrupt wikipedia to make your point. Wikipedia has no place for unsourced statements. Tagging is just an alternative for removing the text. Keeping unsourced text untouched is not an option. And it's simply not my duty to google-search obscure facts about unknown organizations (although I have actually done so). --Damiens.rf 18:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It is everyone's duty to better the encyclopedia...and that means Googling (sp?) sources for "unknown organizations". You have just said it isn't your duty, which means you choose not to do it. So, adding 20+ tags to a page is somehow better? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not anyone's duty (other than the original contributor's). This project is based on voluntary work. --Damiens.rf 18:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to say so, but I agree with Damiens.rf on this specific issue. The section is using self-published sources to make otherwise unsupported claims about third parties (the American Family Association). See WP:SELFPUB points 2 & 3. See also American Family Association#Homosexuality 2, where the same information is presented with the same references. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

References can be added. Like I said, it is easy to template the page to death with tags, templates, and God knows what else asking for this, that and the other....but it is just as easy to Google the two groups and find those references. Damiens.rf can do this, he is choosing harrassment by tag and template over bettering the article. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 17:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with damiens.sf that lots of templates are the way to go, but I agree that each paragraph in this specific section should either be (a) neutrally sourced or (b) removed. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Either template or delete, and I would support the later given that there does not seem to be lot of independent news coverage on this organisation according to Google News. I dont see an obligation for other editors to find sources and rewrite, that would be the obligation of the original editor who wrote this section. Damiens.sf did the right think, and I would hope that more editors would do what is an unthankful task, that is, pointing out problem with articles, either by deleting content or by tagging problematic sections. Andrei Rublev (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support removing section. In my opinion, the section on the AFA is primarily a catalog of positions that the organization has taken regarding the AFA. I don't think the article would suffer from removing the section about EM's positions on AFA actions, and it seems that none of us who've searched have found any independent sourcing for it. If important updates need to be made- for example, if EM and the AFA end up facing one another in court- that should be added as sources become available. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• I think sources should be looked for first before removing. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • This is not how Wikipedia works. And at this point, you have reverted me 5 times already in less than 2 hours [2][3][4][5][6]. Please stop and do something constructive. --Damiens.rf 18:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Why don't you? All you have done (and I could list the edits, but it might be a little long) is tag, template, edit war, delete, make snide and sarcastic remakes, tag some more, delete, edit war for what exactly? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Back in May I've pointed out the problems with this article on this talk page and nothing has been done. Them I tagged it, and some effort started to be made to find sources. Tagging is good for Wikipedia, my friend. And you're not welcome to remove them. --Damiens.rf 18:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
        • When they border on 20+ and they also border on harrassment by tagging and other users have said the same and done the same, I think you are in the minority here and probably in the wrong. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you think it's the excessive tagging and personal insults that are making people reluctant to work with you? Besides pointing out problems and tagging, have you done anything that makes the article better? You could probably have fixed this article and three others in the time you've spent making other editors assume that anyone that rude must also be wrong. Me, I first saw your edits and thought you had a point, but you've alienated me so completely that I don't feel I can do anything more to help you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Be back when you're capable of making unpassionate non-personal judgements. --Damiens.rf 18:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Just because there's nothing "pro-American Family Association" in the article doesn't make the other content null and void. If you have something positive about AFA to add that is relevant to Equality Mississippi, why not do that instead of whining about the fact that such content is missing? That's the process on Wikipedia, not deleting content because some other content isn't present. Just saying... I'll also go on record and point out that Damiens.rf and I have had negative editing experience with each other going on for about months now, all over Wikipedia which began from the tons of images he has nommed for deletion. I took issue with that and ever since, he's been nomming either personal pages of mine (such as today with the 3 shortcut redirects to my userpage and talk page) for deletion or stalking articles I have been involved with such as this one. In otherwords, this is all in bad faith on his part.- ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 18:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree a bit here. I find some of Damiens.rf's editing, particularly on LGBT subjects troubling. They apparently don't approve in some way but this does seem a form of harassment which violates our civility policies. Others are looking at the issues so it may be wisest for them to fully disengage from here. -- Banjeboi 01:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

"How do you cite that someone is your friend? "

About this edit... well, I don't know how to cite that. But if we can't cite, we don't use it. We can't rely on one editor's personal account as a source.

Most of the problems with this article, as I pointed out back in May, seems to be that it's based only on Jody's personal experience. Unfortunately, this is not acceptable for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is for original research.

Another point (still not tagged) where this same problem occur is with the logo's description on the infobox: "The joining of the 'E' and 'M' in the logo represents bringing equality to Mississippi.". Says who? --Damiens.rf 19:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Dude, could you start anymore of an arguement? You have nitpicked over this entire article, one that you haven't touched, as far as I can tell, until today. Give it up and stop your harrassment of the article, the people editing it and ASE....NOW...before you get blocked. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You should be more careful with labelling edits as vandalism when they are not. Pointing out problems with missing sources is hardly nitpicking. Andrei Rublev (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

When it has been marked over and over and over again and removed just as many times, I call that vandalism. I also say that I and several other editors are losing our tempers and patience with Damiens.rf and his little parade of tags, templates, sarcasm and BS he is putting on. Also, when you have gone from tagging the entire article to bitching about whether a logo really means something, that is nitpicking and begging anywhere for an arguement. Damiens.rf should have been blocked about 2 hours ago for this behaviour and very well may if he keeps it up. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The article is protected for 24hs. Is this enough time to source the "friendship" and logo discussion? If not, what are the suggestions?

1. Remove the unsourced information?
2. Tag it as unsourced to give more time for sources to be found? Or
3. Or leave unsourced information in the article?

I would go for 1 or 2 with no prejudice, but 3 seems unacceptable. What do you guys think? --Damiens.rf 19:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a better idea. How about this...let everyone else have a go with this discussion and you take your leave. You have poisoned enough wells thank you very much, you don't need to be poisoning this discussion and I think you are the last person who should decide what stays and what goes on an article you have waaay too much interest in. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't fully understand your proposal. What would be done about the unsourced information (that the matter of this discussion)? --Damiens.rf 19:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Leave that up to someone else. Quadell has proposed that you take a two week break from this article and ASE and I do believe you should take it. YOu can find his whole proposal on his talk page. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

I've been patrolling Special:RecentChanges, and this article has cropped up an awful lot in the last half an hour or so. Will everyone please stop edit warring? If you chaps cannot learn to play nicely, I'm going to request this page be protected for a wee bit. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I see that someone just protected it. Oh well. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Current disagreements - June 2009

I'd like to try to break this into sections, and please, please, please, let's try to focus on the article, not on the various parties involved. Just state your opinion in the section with as little vitriol as you can muster. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)`~

Logo description

Should the article say, under the logo, "The joining of the 'E' and 'M' in the logo represents bringing equality to Mississippi."?

• No, because it's not needed and slightly fluffy. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, I think the user/reader should be able to decide for the selves what the logo represents. The message doesn't hurt, it helps in my opinion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• No, not unless there's an independent source for this. --Damiens.rf 20:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• No. If it is significant, it should be described/explained in the body of the text. Since it is non-controversial, exceptional sourcing should not be necessary. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• No. Add to article if desired. Would this be a question on any other article? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, because that's what it said on the web site at the time it was added. We don't remove content just because sources are dead. Additionally, this is a caption in the infobox, not in the actual article. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 20:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Yes and perhaps the wayback machine can source it as well. -- Banjeboi 01:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

COI tag

Tag removed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is a COI tag needed at the top? No, because the COI tag is not meant to permanently state that someone with a COI has edited the article; it's there to bring attention to the fact that there are issues with the article because of that, that need to be fixed. I don't know of any NPOV problems -- just sourcing and tone problems. – Quadell (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC) No, Per Quadell. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC) No opinion for now. It should surely go when the clean up is finished. --Damiens.rf 20:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC) No, per Quadell. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Yes (as editor who added the tag initially). From recent discussions on this talk page there are clearly unsettled iisues of NPOV and self-sourcing. Remove the tag when the issues are settled. See discussion on Allstarecho's talk page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC) No because it's also noted in a box on the article talk page. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 20:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC) No, tthe use on the talkpage is toxic enough; our readers care about the article not who writes them. Find specific areas to be cleaned-up and work on improving them. COI tags are rarely needed or helpful. -- Banjeboi 01:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC) What's "toxic" about either tag? Both convey to the reader that Allstarecho is an editor who is closely connected to the subject - that is factual and not in dispute. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Indeed, but is it really necessary on the article page and the talk page? I don't think it should be on the article page itself. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 04:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC) In my experience COI tags have only worked to polarize against the suspect/offending editor in question. Ths really should be saved for exceptional cases where the article problems are somewhat unfixable in short time so readers should be alerted that the article itself is somehow greatly compromised. I would be more swayed if we had exceptional claims, a hoax or great omissions of information. Instead there seems to be some marginal issues that are indeed easily fixable and the editor in question forthcoming and happy to address issues. I think both tags should likely go as unneeded, especially as the group disbanded last year so nothing we write here is likely to impact their work or political outcomes. -- Banjeboi 07:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC) No, since the issue is noted on the talk page. Born Gay (talk) 07:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Refimprove tag

Tag should stay for now
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is the refimprove tag needed at the top? Yes, until the references are improved. – Quadell (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Yes, Per Quadell. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Yes, until the references are improved. --Damiens.rf 20:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Yup. More and better references are needed. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Yes. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Yes, as many original sources are dead. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 21:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Maybe, wayback machine can revive "dead" links and most articles need more references. -- Banjeboi 01:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Fact tags

Are the fact tags useful throughout the article?

The voluminous tagging issue has been addressed. Fact tags can be helpful when used judiciously (sheesh).
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No, not if refimprove is there. We should use one or the other, not both. – Quadell (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC) No, Per Quadell. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Yes (or remove the unsourced statements altogether), since no effort was made to fix the article before they being added. --Damiens.rf 20:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC) No, completely unnecessary and redundant. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Maybe. Since they are already there, either source or deleted the statements identified by the tags. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC) No, refimprove tag is enough. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 21:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC) A few, maybe. Fact tags should be accents on items that are dubious at best. A handful might be helpful to lead those editors willing to do the work as to what information needs to be sourced. In this case they seemed to be weapons in battle. Not a good idea. -- Banjeboi 01:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Primary Source section

Should the Primary Source section be included?

• No opinion. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• No opinion here either. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• No, per WP:SELF. Consider adding relevant sources to Wikisource and citing them inline. --Damiens.rf 20:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Dunno. Never seen one of these before, but suggestion of using Wikisource seems to have merit. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• No. See Self reference discussion above. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Yes but no rush to fix that, work on other sourcing issues and see if this isn't addressed by better sources. -- Banjeboi 01:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• No. Classic example of non-encyclopedic content, must be removed. Born Gay (talk) 02:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Update. I hope to replace that with clarifying which items are sourced to which documents and that those are under the OTRS tag, in this way the Primary sources section will not be needed and relevant sources are coverted and the link to the archived pages is moved to the external links section instead. -- Banjeboi 22:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Friendship

Should the article mention a friendship between EM's founder and a hatecrime victim?

• No, unless there's a secondary source for this. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Yes...but it needs a reference. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• No, not unless there's a (secondary) source for this. --Damiens.rf 20:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Yes. This seems like salient information; however, a source should be provided. Since it seems non-controversial, perhaps this is one of the few places an additional fact tag would be appropriate? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• No opinion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • If the implication is that the friend was the victim of a hate crime, then that needs to be sourced (by reliable third-party sources). Sourcing the relationship is probably not necessary. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Sourcing the relationship is necessary, since that "friendship" was once used to promote the organization (we shouldn't let it happen on Wikipedia without a source). --Damiens.rf 13:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, since it was a main impetus for the organization even being started. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 21:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • But do you believe we can attribute this information to an independent reliable source? --Damiens.rf 21:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, it adds context and many LGBT political efforts have been prompted by hate-crime murders and attacks. -- Banjeboi 01:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • But you understand we still need a source for that? How do we know, for instance, they weren't just acquaintances? And according to our current sources, that was no hate crime. --Damiens.rf 13:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm quite familiar with the issue at hand. Again, this is not a case of it being untrue or even unverifiable. If we have a statement from the founder of the group stating A, B and therefore C we can find a way to make it work. I guess the issue would then become can you prove it's not true. -- Banjeboi 13:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Right now, I don't see how I could verify this information. And a statement from the founder isn't enough, just like a statement from me saying I had a friendship with Serge Gainsbourg before starting his fanclub wouldn't be reliable. --Damiens.rf 13:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
        • The executive director stated they were friends in multiple interviews so those can be cited. Again we're not disputing this is true but simply attributing it. -- Banjeboi 22:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
          • The executive director is a primary source with a conflict of interest, in that it's good for him that people believe he was a friend of a poor victm of terrible homophobic killers. Wikipedia requires its articles to rely on independent reliable sources for a reason. --Damiens.rf 06:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
            • I find that statement distasteful to the extreme. That you would honestly think someone lied about having a friendship as a justification for founding a LGBT group is boggling. I really feel for you that your outlook on others seems so jaded. I can only guess you enjoy tormenting other editors at this point as this is among the worst things I think I've read in a long time. -- Banjeboi 12:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
              • That statement right there, Damiens.rf, is exactly why you should not be anywhere near this article. I suggest you take Quadell up on that two week thing and come back and re-read that henious statement you just wrote. You think it's good for ASE to have people believe he was the friend of victim of murder?! WTF! You sir, are nothing. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 12:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• No, not unless there is an acceptable source. Born Gay (talk) 02:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Equality Mississippi and the American Family Association

Should this section be deleted?

Consensus to not to remove but find sources
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No. It currently only has primary sources from one side, and that's a problem, but let's work to fix that. It's not written in a terribly slanted way, and it's notable to the topic. Add sources, don't delete the section. – Quadell (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC) No....but only with references. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC) No, unless independent reliable sources couldn't be found. --Damiens.rf 20:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC) No, but needs better referencing. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Yes. See "Primary sources" discussion above. Self-sourcing should not be used for claims about third parties. Remove or find other references. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC) No, we don't delete content based off of dead sources or just because there's nothing "positive" about AFA. If anyone has any positive content about the AFA in relation to Equality Mississippi, feel free to add it. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 21:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC) But do you believe we can attribute that analysis of the AFA x EM relationship to an independent reliable source? --Damiens.rf 21:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC) No, it needs clean-up though. -- Banjeboi 01:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Mississippi State LGBT Summit.

Should the leading section mention Equality Mississippi holding the "Mississippi State LGBT Summit"?

• No, as long as it's not sourced in the article's body and no attempt is made to clarify what's the Mississippi State LGBT Summit. --Damiens.rf 20:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral.. considering it was the first such event in Mississippi, it's certainly includable. Don't mind it not being in the lede as long it stays in the article. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 21:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • But do you believe we can attribute this information to an independent reliable source? --Damiens.rf 21:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Yes. If it's the first LGBT summit in the state's history it certainly should be noted as an accomplishment. -- Banjeboi 01:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • And how do we know it was "first LGBT summit" without an independent source? --Damiens.rf 13:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Perhaps we would find that source, no? Again your quibbling about something that no one else but you is suggesting is untrue and for reasons known only to yourself. I may be reading this wrong but are you claiming to be an authority on gay life in Mississippi? Is there some reason we should accept your word over that of the executive director of the very group being discussed? I'm seeing nothing to suggest this information is misleading or untrue. What I am seeing is your rather tenditious effort to disparage the subject and main editor and otherwise make editing here unpleasant by arguing on points you don't actually have much of an interest in besides deleting them. -- Banjeboi 13:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Please understand that asking for sources has nothing to do with suggesting something is untrue. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. You're surely reading it wrong, since I've claimed nothing like me being a Mississippi Gay Authority (where did you took that from?). --Damiens.rf 13:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
        • The question is asking should this be removed, the answer is no, work to source it. We likely already have primary sources so finding supporting source would likely resolve this. -- Banjeboi 22:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, per Banjeboi. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Bangeboi didn't addressed the lack of sources. How would you deal with that? --Damiens.rf 13:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Effort to find sources

The above development brings the question of how much should we wait for sources before removing some information? Say, for instance, that we decide to leave the section about the Logo's meaning in the article while we search for independent sources. Now suppose we can't find any. How long will we search? How much time (if any) would be fair for a non-controversial removal of unsourced statements? --Damiens.rf 20:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It is important to understand that there is a world of difference between the following:

• Non-controversial removal of unsourced statements (X is a friend of Y).
• Removal of non-controversial unsourced statements (Logo means X).

If something is non-controversial, there is no reason for hasty removal. Article "regulars" should be given the opportunity to provide sources for controversial statements in a timely manner (days to weeks), but for non-controversial statements a far greater (even indefinite) period should be given. Of course, the talk page should be used to debate what statements are controversial or non-controversial, not edit warring. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I have not been edit-warring if it was what you mentioned. I mostly agree with you in that controversial statements have a greater urge for sourcing/removal. But still, uncontroversial statements can't simply stay forever. This would only harm Wikipedia's credibility. And stating the artist's intentions when creating a logo is not as uncontroversial as, say, stating the Sun is yellow. --Damiens.rf 20:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Not forever, but certainly much longer than controversial statements. The logo statement (while currently in the wrong place) does not need exceptional sourcing because it isn't an exceptional statement, for example. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

And as the artist, I'm telling you now the info is correct.. aside from that, it was also on the organizational web site. We don't delete content just because sources are dead. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 21:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe then the article could say "According to the organization founder, director and logo designer, the joining of the 'E' and 'M' in the logo represents...", followed by a link to the original website where it was stated. --Damiens.rf 21:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This smells like you want a deadline for when you can again start picking on the article. This is a really bad idea and we don't use deadlines in this manner. -- Banjeboi 01:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP concerns

{{Editprotected}} This article currently calls "Brent David Kabat" and "Jeremy Shawn Bentley" "killers", but no source is given for that (I've found some sources about they being "charged", but not "convicted"). I request this information to be immediately removed (or sourced) due to WP:BLP concerns. I've tried to fix that earlier (before the article being protected) but I was reverted. --Damiens.rf 20:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

See JEREMY SHAWN BENTLEY v. STATE OF ALABAMA. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This source should be added to the article as soon as possible to address the BLP-related concern. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Great. Please someone add this reference to the article:

{{cite press release
 | title = Jeremy Shawn Bentley c. State of Alabama
 | publisher = Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
 | date = 2004-03-26
 | url = http://al.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CAL%5C2004%5C20040326_0000173.AL.htm/qx
 | accessdate = 2009-06-15
 }}

--Damiens.rf 21:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done It felt weird editing a protected article though. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not an administrator, so I have never had the pleasure. I imagine it is a bit like having sex with a condom. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it felt more like having sex with your boss's wife, because he told you you're supposed to, while he stand behind with his arms folded to make sure you do it right. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That does sound weird. Much would depend on whether or not the boss's wife was a good shag, of course. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You'll also need to add one for Brent David Kabat which I found at the same web site but it's not giving me a correct link to. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 21:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If you read the source carefully, you'll notice it's already there. --Damiens.rf 21:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that the court decision (as primary source and presumably only one of a number relating to this case) be added to the article. I simply offered it to quell Damiens.rf's immediate BLP concerns. I am vaguely troubled that readers may infer that this was a hate crime although it isn't clear that it was, or that it was prosecuted as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delicious carbuncle (talk • contribs) 21:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hate crime that was not

According to my reading of the above source, the crime wasn't related to the victim's sexuality. But the way it's mentioned in the article, (IMHO) it gives the wrong impression that Mr. Bentley and Mr. Kabat were some kind of homophobic murderers. I understand that this wrongful interpretation may have led to the creation of Equality Mississippi, but there's no reason for Wikipedia to perpetuate this potentially libeling misunderstanding. The article should be fixed to make it clear that the crime, after all, was not related to the victim's sexual preferences. --Damiens.rf 13:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll just say that simply because some cop said it wasn't a hate crime, doesn't make it not one. These 2 killers abducted Jamie from a gay bar. They could have picked any bar - black bar, straight bar, midget bar.. but they targeted a gay bar, therein a gay person. The cops don't always get it right, especially in the South where most of the police departments refuse to even file LGBT related hate crime statistics with the FBI each year. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 16:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand that this is both a personal and political issue for you. The murder of your friend was a tragic event. Your characterization of it as a hate crime is lacking verifiability. I would have no objection to something along the lines of "Renaldo formed the organization after the murder of his friend, which he believed was a hate crime" or "Renaldo believed his friend's murder was motivated by anti-homosexual bigotry". I'm sure you could easily find something to reference your own feelings about it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Supported. We should make it clear that the hate-crime interpretation comes from one of the victims friends, and that it was not supported by the Justice. Sticking to the facts and attributing potentially libeling opinions would keep Wikipedia safe of BLP problems. --Damiens.rf 17:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Are we really worried about libel problems on two convicted murders? Come on. Plus, ASE has a point....in the south, particularly gulf states, some police departments won't list hate crime stats. Probably because they happen waaaay more than they would like people to know. So, the fact that the police didn't charge this as a hate crime, isn't that big a deal...it was a hate crime because (like ASE stated) the person was kidnapped from a gay bar...that is the definition of a hate crime. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but Wikipedia does not work that way. WP:BLP does not exclude convicted murderers. ASE is free to call whoever he wants a homophobic murderer, a rapist or a terrorist, but he should do that on his myspace page, not on Wikipedia. Mine, his or yours opinion about police department's behaviors doesn't change a thing. --Damiens.rf 19:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, can you explain why convicted murderers would not or should not be covered by WP's BLP policy? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the article should not say it was a hate crime unless there is no substantial disagreement about that, and it should not say it was not a hate crime unless that's unambiguous. BLP concerns are valid. The current version of the article does not say the crime was a hate crime, and does not overtly speculate about the killers' motives. I think that's responsible.

There seems to be controversy over the insertion of the statement "Nevertheless, it was later established that the victim's sexual preferences had no influence in the crime". This is sourced to Bentley v. Alabama, but that source does not say whether the victim's sexual preference had any influence on the crime or not. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The point you made is valid. The source also doesn't say it had "no influence", so, my wording was also mistaken.

What would be a nice wording for pointing out that, after all, the interpretation that it was a hate-crime didn't came out in the court case? I think it's important for the article to state that. It currently says:

1. Ray was gay.
2. Bentley and Kabat killed Ray.
3. A gay civil rights organization was founded in response to this murder.

I don't think it's far fetched to believe that readers will imply Bentley and Kabat killed Ray because he was gay, making it a hate-crime. Some version of the above mentioned phrase should be used to make it clear there's no evidence supporting Equality Mississippi's interpretation of the crime as a hate-crime. How could be phrase that? --Damiens.rf 19:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, something to keep in mind is that in 1999, killing a gay man for being gay was not considered a hate crime in the U.S. In fact, even today, if someone killed me for being gay my killer would not be prosecutable for a hate crime (though an act to alleviate this is currently in committee in the Senate). So I don't think it's necessary to say that Bentley and Kabat weren't convicted of a hate crime, because the act wasn't (and isn't) even applicable. They weren't convicted of counterfeiting either, but there's no need to say it.

Separate from the hate crime issue, should we comment on whether they were motivated by homophobia or not? I don't see a reason to. The court did not, so far as I can tell, comment on this, and no news sources do. It would not make them more or less liable for prosecution whether they were so motivated or not, so it's not relevant to their legal concerns. It would be inaccurate to say "they were motivated by homophobia" or "they were not motivated by homophobia", since none of our sources say. I say we should just state the facts and let the readers draw their own conclusion. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The court did not commented on homophobia, but it did commented on the murderer's motivations (and homophobia was not among them). You're right that the important point is not either it was a hate-crime as defined by justice, but either it was a crime motivated by homophobia. Don't you agree that readers are lead to draw the homophobic-crime conclusion if the article keeps silent about that? See the (1) (2) (3) points I mentioned above. How would we phrase the information that homophobia was never discussed to be among the killer's motivations in the court? --Damiens.rf 19:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that readers would be inclined to think that more than the facts themselves lead a reasonable to conclude that. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand you. What a "reasonable" would conclude from the facts currently stated in the article (the ones listed as (1) (2) (3) above)? That Ray's killers were motivated by his sexuality?, or that they were not? --Damiens.rf 20:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

If someone had access to our sources, but not our article, he might conclude that Tolbert was killed because he was gay. They might conclude that Tolbert probably wasn't, but Renaldo thought he was. They might conclude something else. It might not even enter their mind to consider the killers' motivations. If that same person read our article, he/she would likely come to the same conclusion. None of these possibilities is encouraged or discouraged. That's why the article is fine in that area. – Quadell ^(talk) 00:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Have to disagree with you from the first point: No reasonable person reading our source might conclude that Tolbert was killed because he was gay because there's no mention about that in the court case. --Damiens.rf 05:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a point to keeping Wikipedia NPOV. I suggest that this be presented as dry facts. The abduction happenned, killed, body found, X and Y tried and found guilty of ____. LGBT activists, or whomever, veiwed this as a another hate-crime which was/was not part of Mississippi criminal code (every state is different and many states have no hate-crime enhancements). We could even add a sourced statement that the police stated it wasn't a hate-crime while there is a history of police denying such crimes are hate motivated against both LGBT people and as well as racially-motivated crimes not being reported as such. This is a historic issue with LGBT hate-crimes worldwide, many hate-crime victims are actually victimized by the police and others in authority, councilmembers and other elected officials, judgesm etc. so simply don't report any crimes. This is also a main reason why sensitivity training for LGBT and other minority issues has been rolled out in most major city police departents and why LGBT police recruitment takes place similar to why police departments were integrated racially in the later 1900s. -- Banjeboi 22:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that anyone here is suggesting that hate crimes against LGBT individuals do not occur. I think the issue here is that we are all speculating about the motivation for the crime. I have suggested what I believe to be a workable compromise above. Do you have any objection to it? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be expanded as i suggest with context of if and when hate-crimes against LGBT people were even prosecutable and add the police statement with balance that this is in context of the histry of the police denying all such attacks are hate-crimes - are reluctant to label such things. -- Banjeboi 22:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "police statement" you are referring to here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

We should not state anything about what the killers' motivations were or were not, beyond what the sources say. That's what the article currently does. – Quadell ^(talk) 00:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry Quadell, but an article may make it more likely for readers to infer something without explicitly stating that "something". This article currently does make its readers more likely to infer homophobic motivations to the killers. Again, the article states:

1. Ray was gay.
2. Bentley and Kabat murdered Ray.
3. A gay civil rights organization was founded in response to this murder.

Of course we're driving our readers to believe the killing was a gay-civil-rights isssue! The very same mistake Jody undertake when founding EM. We should surely report this mistake, but not repeat it.

Bentley, the killer, suffered from dissociative identity disorder, and it was considered that he presented "a substantial risk of harm to himself and to others" (read the Bentley v. State source), and not "a substantial risk of harm to gay people". For all his wrongdoings, he should not be taken as an homophobic murderer. EM did take him as one, but we can't let Wikipedia to be used as a tool for parrotting EM's vision. This article is not EM's myspace page. --Damiens.rf 05:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Now I made a mistake in founding a civil rights organization. Nice one... - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I Don't think it was an error founding EM. I don't have an opinion about that. I refereed to your mistaken belief that Ray murder was motivated by some form of homophobia, when actually, the murderer was a completely problematic folk with a history of violence and mental-illness since two years old. --Damiens.rf 15:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Friendship reverting

My tentative of keeping the friendship information in the article was just reverted[7]. Since all the source found so far just show ASE claiming a friendship with Ray, I've changed the article to say exactly that (and no more than that). ASE was reverted it stating "umm, no, he as well as other mutual friends would say so as well". I don't feel comfortable with just taking ASE's word for the mutuality. That is to say, I'm disputing that.

This is not an irrelevant issues, since the prestige of the organization may be affected by this fact.

Is there any reason to have the article to say more than one can find on the sources? --Damiens.rf 20:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You are disputing the executive director of the orginization? That seems the height of assuming bad faith. They had a friend abducted and murdered and started a statewide organization to honor that friend. Do you not see how incredibly spiteful this feels to have someone goading you about a friend who was abducted and murdered? Please desist and find another area to focus your energy this certainly feels like wikibullying to me. -- Banjeboi 22:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess this depends on whether we think the statement needs to be cited or not. Wikipedia:Verifiability says: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Is this something that is likely to be challenged? Does anyone think they might not have been friends? What motivation could Jody have for saying so if it wasn't true? If this is something that no one seriously doubts, it does not need a source. If someone might have doubts, it needs a cite (and without one, the fact should be removed as unverified). – Quadell ^(talk) 01:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Nobody not involved in the founding of Equality Mississippi is really in a position to have an opinion on this matter. Therefore, it would have to be considered doubtful by almost all Wikipedia editors, since very few of us could honestly say that we had anything to do with this organization. To say that is not to accuse Jody of making a false statement, or to violate WP:AGF, it's simply observing that any claim about his relationships with other people would have to be considered doubtful if not supported by a reliable source. There appears to be no reason for thinking that he would say something that wasn't true, but how do we know he remembered events correctly? It does need a source. Born Gay (talk) 04:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok. For now, I've changed the article to just state the facts (that Jordy says Ray was his friend). --Damiens.rf 05:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You seriously think that remembering a friend is something I couldn't remember correctly? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 05:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I seriously think that claims that cannot be verified by reliable source do not belong in articles. As I think several people have already pointed out to you, your personal testimony is not enough. That is not accusing you of lying, or anything else, it's simply insisting that Wikipedia needs to maintain high standards. Placing something into this article because a Wikipedia editor says it is correct would set a bad precedent for other articles, even though what you have said may be perfectly true. I wouldn't want to see other claims put into similar articles because someone said that we should take his word for it about something. Born Gay (talk) 07:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This edit, besides the juvenile summary, was a good one and I believe it fixes the issue at hand. Good work, poor form. --Damiens.rf 15:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Poor form indeed, kind of like your post here as well as numerous others over the last month. Please don't play an angel role here. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 17:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

More reverts

Is it just me, or every edit I do to this article is reverted?

I don't understand this recent revert. There's not interpretation of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources that would consider the sentence "Numerous television and radio interviews with Renaldo after Tolbert's disappearance noted they were friends." a valid reference. Is anyone capable of defending that?

Also, the bit about the LGBT summit, even ASE assumed (in the edit summary) it was not sourced[8]. It was a bad idea to deliberately add unsourced information to an article tagged with {{Refimprove}} for more than a month.

Is anyone seriously going to defend this recent revert? Please, focus on the content. Opinions about me wouldn't be helpful. --Damiens.rf 15:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hidding unhelpful offtopic discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Do you noticed that everytime someone adds something to the page, you revert it to your "prefered version" or make some snide comment? I think you need to take about, oh, 5 different users' advice and go find another article (and one ASE isn't working on) before you are blocked. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 15:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC) You asked "Do you noticed that everytime someone adds something to the page, you revert it to your "prefered version""? Answer: No. And I urge you to remove this accusation or provide diffs. What I noticed is that everytime Damiens.rf adds something to the page, YOU revert it to your "prefered version". Diffs: 12:09, June 18, 2009 - Reverted good faith edits by Damiens.rf; These edits are fine as they are. Please take it to the talk page for discussion.. 16:10, June 15, 2009 - absolutely and completely unnecessary 16:01, June 15, 2009 - Reverted 1 edit by Damiens.rf identified as vandalism to last revision by SmackBot. 15:55, June 15, 2009 - "interest of the reader" my big toe. Add another template or tag and I will request the page be protected 15:22, June 15, 2009 - Reverted good faith edits by Damiens.rf; I don't think so. Reverting. 14:49, June 15, 2009 - I don't think the "what" template is necessary, that sentence is pretty straight forward. 14:42, June 15, 2009 - reverting harrassment by templates...chill dude 12:14, June 15, 2009 - Undid revision 296536470 by Damiens.rf Other than those, your only edit to the article in the time frame was a... revert of some other editor about the year of the hurricane Katrina. I ask again: Is anyone seriously going to defend this recent revert? Please, focus on the content. Opinions and attacks wouldn't be helpful. --Damiens.rf 15:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC) One could list your "edits" as well. Which are essentially reverts and snide and sarcastic comments. Plus one comment that makes me look at you in a whole new light and it ain't a good one. Since your first edit on this article you have done zero good edits on this article and managed to get the article protected twice. You call that being a help? You have had numerous editors call for your topic ban from this article and some calling for you outright block and ban for your behavior. You call that being a help? I think you need to take a look, not at my edits or ASE or anyone elses, but at yours and ask yourself, of all the anger and comments and threads, have I done any good. The answer will be a very loud "no". - NeutralHomer • Talk • 15:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC) I see. No diffs, no discussion about content, more attacks. Noted. --Damiens.rf 15:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC) You want diffs, OK, but how about just one. I think this one speaks volumes on your behavior and way of thinking. You thought this was necessary or appropriate? You think it is good that people believe ASE is the friend of a murder victim? That is callous and beyond low. You actually think that was helping the article or would calm things? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 16:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC) That was not a diff of what you were accusing me of (that everytime someone adds something to the page, I revert it to my "prefered version"). You're changing your discourse to distract me from the main point. Nice. About what I said in that diff, I stand to my statement that "Wikipedia requires its articles to rely on independent reliable sources for a reason.". Asking for a reliable source is not calling someone a liar. Pointing out a potential for COI is not calling someone a liar. Refusing to accept a primary source is not calling someone a liar. There are some very basic things about WP:RS and WP:V that you, ASE, and some other folks on this page should learn. Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for you to backup your above accusations with real diffs, or to withdraw it (or to ignore this, and accuse me of something else, which is more lilely to happen). --Damiens.rf 16:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC) You are actually trying to goad me into an arguement. How cute. When you just said on your cute ANI post that we are wearing you out with our arguements. As for that diff of your prefer versions, it would be the one before I reverted you...this one. You didn't like the comprimise, so you revert it to what you feel is best, not to what was there before. Try reading up on WP:OWN, cause you are trying to own this article and that ain't gonna happen. Oh, and for someone "standing by" their statement that it is good for people to believe ASE had a friend that was a murder victim. You sir are a callous asshole (and I stand by that term) and nothing you do will make me believe otherwise. If you can't see what you wrote was unthinkably wrong, rude and cold...you don't deserve to be on Wikipedia, not alone the internet....or this planet. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 16:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on the content issue may follow now. I'm inclined to implement what I discuss above, if no one objects. --Damiens.rf 16:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Re the LGBT Pride para, I think the simpler wording is better - the other form of the wording twists readers' heads in a knot and possibly overstates its importance. I also agree about the ref - it is not a reference. However I do think that saying Tolbert was Reinado's friend passes a "reasonable man on the street" common sense test, and unless someone can find any source alleging they were not friends, and given the rather translucent meaning of the word "friend" anyway, I think "and friend of" is sufficient in this instance. Orderinchaos 04:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Mostly agree it all you say, except for the "friendship" point. We have sources saying AllStarEcho considered Ray a friend, but not the other way round. And then we have a non-negligible COI issue. It have been contested, and should be sourced. But I believe AllStarEcho himself already gave a workable solution, by rephrasing it[9]. Indeed, after that, this was only made an issue due to Neutralhomer's break down yesterday. --Damiens.rf 11:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)