User talk:HorseyMcHorse

November 2023[edit]

Hello, I'm Johnnie Bob. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Anthony Brown, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Johnnie Bob (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023[edit]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Joe Vogel (politician). Thank you. Y2hyaXM (talk) 01:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! In which country are you located? Your page states you live in Maryland, however, the time stamp on your edits are maybe 6 plus hours ahead of Maryland time. HorseyMcHorse (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HorseyMcHorse

How is this question relevant here? Vegan416 (talk) 02:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:ZainabChaudryActivist.webp[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:ZainabChaudryActivist.webp. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why you removed the word "non-sexual"[edit]

@HorseyMcHorse Please explain why you removed the word "non-sexual" from this sentence without giving any reason in violation of wikipedia policy: "In 2023, Chaudry supported a protest by Muslim, Christian, and Jewish parents demanding a right to continue to opt-out of non-sexual LGBT materials required by the Montgomery County School Board in Montgomery County, Maryland". If you fail to that within a week I will put the word back. Vegan416 (talk) 02:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-sexual" is a loaded word subject to debate in the LGBT context. It's use is inappropriate as Wikipedia rules require non-biased and neutral edits. Please refrain from biased edits on this topic as you have made previously. HorseyMcHorse (talk) 04:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HorseyMcHorse

I disagree with your view. The LGBT material discussed here is definitely not sexual in any reasonable way. As the sources indicate Chaudry objects using books like "Uncle Bobby’s Wedding" and "My Rainbow". You can see for yourself that these books don't have any sexual content. Being neutral doesn't mean you have to give equal weight to extreme and paranoid interpretations. In any case in the interest of compromise I'm willing to change the phrasing to:

"In 2023, Chaudry supported a protest by Muslim, Christian, and Jewish parents the Montgomery County School Board in Montgomery County, Maryland, demanding a right to opt-out of LGBT materials even outside of sexual-education classes". Vegan416 (talk) 09:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That fact that you disagree with my view is irrelevant. The purpose of editing is to keep in line with Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view policy. Adding that this is outside of sexual education is completely your opinion since the fact whether LGBT education is sexual or non-sexual is debateable. When an issue is in the realm of debate, definitively choosing one side of that debate is an opinion and is in violation of Wikipedia's policy. Additionally, your suggested sentence's grammar is incorrect. The current sentence is factual without bias. If a biased change is made, it will be reverted. HorseyMcHorse (talk) 10:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HorseyMcHorse

No. You are wrong. My suggested sentence is factual and without any bias. There are classes on sexual education which people can opt out of. And now they want to opt out of classes that are not part of sexual education. Nobody in their right mind would say that the books I mentioned in my previous comment are sexual. The fact that there is a debate on the subject doesn't necessarily mean that both sides should be given equal weight. By your logic wikipedia should also be neutral between Flat Earthers and Spherical Earthers, or between ISIS and the USA... Vegan416 (talk) 12:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is your personal opinion. Stating "nobody in their right mind" would believe so and so is referring to your personal stance on an issue. Your comparisons to this topic are inaccurate. The LGBT curriculum is a controversial topic prevalent all over the United States and is currently under debate in several states and court systems. Per Wikipedia policy, you need to keep to a neutral point of view and not one that you personally espouse. HorseyMcHorse (talk) 13:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HorseyMcHorse

The fact that there are debates about the LGBT curriculum doesn't change the fact that there is nothing sexual in the books I mentioned. Please prove me wrong and show me an example of sexual content in at least on of these two books. Vegan416 (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And that is exactly the point up for debate. On one side the entire LGBT curriculum is considered sexual and on another, the one you are on, it is considered non-sexual, and as such, it is your opinion and not a neutral point-in-fact. It is obvious you are very passionate about this topic from your spirited responses, however, per Wikipedia policy we must keep neutral and to the facts. HorseyMcHorse (talk) 13:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HorseyMcHorse

You may be right about the description of the debate. But you are wrong in assuming that because there is a debate then both sides should be regarded as equal by wikipedia. Let me give a more pertinent analogy then I gave before - the debate about teaching evolution vs. creationism in schools.

The debate about teaching evolution is just as hot and wide as about teaching LGBT topics. It is raging in many states and court system in the USA for decades now. On the one side there is the "secular"\liberal\moderate-religious establishment that believes in evolution and on the other hand there are many millions of fundamentalists (Christians, Jews and Muslims) that believe in creationism. (BTW there is large overlap between the type of religious type of people who oppose LGBT teaching and evolution teaching).

According to your logic since evolution is a controversial political and religious issue, then Wikipedia should be neutral in the debate between evolutionist and creationists. But this is absolutely false. Wikipedia is in fact 100% in favor of evolution theory and assume it to be correct, despite the fact that it is a hotly debated topic. Vegan416 (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stating Wikipedia is "100% in favor of evolution theory" is a false statement. It is not your job to come to a conclusion. Wikipedia is a neutral platform. Please refrain from using one-sided biased arguments. HorseyMcHorse (talk) 14:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HorseyMcHorse

You have no idea what you are talking about. Wikipedia is absolutely 100% for evolution and against creationism. You can look at any of the many thousands of articles related to biology and see that I am correct. Here are just a few random examples:

From Intelligent design: 'Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins".' Millions of creationists claim that ID is a scientific theory, and based on that claim they demand that it should be taught in science classes. And they have significant sway in political and maybe even judicial circles. Does wikipedia then refrain from making any judgement on their claim because it should be neutral in politically controversial issues? Not at all. Rather wikipedia slaps the creationists in the face right in the first sentence of this article.
From Creationism: "Creationism is the religious belief that nature, and aspects such as the universe, Earth, life, and humans, originated with supernatural acts of divine creation". Again, millions of creationists claim that creationism is a scientific theory, not a religious belief, and based on that claim they demand that it should be taught in science classes. Is wikipedia trying to be neutral on this debate? No. Again it slaps the creationists in the face right in the first sentence of this article.
From Human evolution: "Human evolution is the evolutionary process within the history of primates that led to the emergence of Homo sapiens as a distinct species of the hominid family that includes all the great apes." Creationists claim that human was created separately from all other animals and was not evolved from other primates. Is wikipedia trying to be neutral on this debate? No. Again it slaps the creationists in the face right in the first sentence of this article.

If I had time I could go on with this for days. In fact this "bias" of the English wikipedia towards secular-scientific-liberal ideas is one of the reasons that Christian fundamentalists have established the Conservapedia as a fundamentalist alternative to Wikipedia. Read about it. Maybe you will feel more at home there. Vegan416 (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HorseyMcHorse

BTW what if I propose the following phrasing:

"In 2023, Chaudry supported a protest by Muslim, Christian, and Jewish parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, claiming that any LGTB related book is sexual material, and therefore their children should have the right to opt-out of its mandatory reading in school".

Do you agree to this version? I cannot see how you can object to it since you yourself admitted here that this is the point of the debate... Vegan416 (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Writing on Israeli-Palestinian conflict[edit]

I noticed your recent edits to Zainab Chaudry. You should be aware that there are special rules in place for content related to the Israel-Palestine conflict. The term "related" in the phrase "any edit related to Palestine/Israel conflict" is used in a broad sense, so your edits may be within scope of the restrictions. An admin like @ScottishFinnishRadish would likely be able to confirm whether you can continue or whether you need to wait until you receive the extended confirmed privilege after 500 edits. Vegan416 (talk) 03:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re Zainab Chaudry[edit]

@HorseyMcHorse

I suggest the following version:

"In 2023, Chaudry supported a protest by Muslim, Christian, and Jewish parents demanding a right to continue to opt-out of all learning materials that mention the LGBT phenomenon, including several books that portray LGBTQ+ families to elementary school kids, that were made mandatory by the Montgomery County School Board in Montgomery County, Maryland".

Surely you cannot object to this change, since it is all inclusive exactly as you said yourself on my talk page.

Vegan416 (talk) 06:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]