Jump to content

Talk:Pray the Gay Away?: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 9: Line 9:
:::Self published is self published. This source is not allowable per WP:BLP. Continue to edir war and you risk blocking.&ndash; [[user:Lionelt|Lionel]] <sup>([[user talk:Lionelt|talk]])</sup> 00:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
:::Self published is self published. This source is not allowable per WP:BLP. Continue to edir war and you risk blocking.&ndash; [[user:Lionelt|Lionel]] <sup>([[user talk:Lionelt|talk]])</sup> 00:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
:::: Self-published sources are not categorically forbidden. And even if they were, there are plenty of sources that are not self-published which report Besen's saying the same thing. [[Special:Contributions/76.201.145.83|76.201.145.83]] ([[User talk:76.201.145.83|talk]]) 00:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
:::: Self-published sources are not categorically forbidden. And even if they were, there are plenty of sources that are not self-published which report Besen's saying the same thing. [[Special:Contributions/76.201.145.83|76.201.145.83]] ([[User talk:76.201.145.83|talk]]) 00:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I have now added a non-self published source to the article which supports the statement. This issue is addressed per your own stated requirements. [[Special:Contributions/76.201.145.83|76.201.145.83]] ([[User talk:76.201.145.83|talk]]) 00:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:57, 30 October 2011

WikiProject iconTelevision: Episode coverage Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.
WikiProject iconLGBT studies Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconChristianity Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Youtube video

This youtube video is self-published by Waybe Besen and is an extremely poor source. This derogatory attack on Lisa Ling violates WP:BLP, specifically WP:BLPSPS. Note that 3RR does not apply to removal of BLP violations.– Lionel (talk) 23:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Saying that Ling apparently did not do a good job researching this subject is not a "derogatory attack". Wayne Besen is a recognized expert on the subject of the "ex-gay" movement, having published an award-nominated book on the subject. His expertise and experience with the subject are more than ample to justify including his point of view on this subject, whether it's in the form of a YouTube video or an op-ed in The New York Times. Please stop removing this valid information for an invalid reason. Thanks. 76.201.145.83 (talk) 00:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Self published is self published. This source is not allowable per WP:BLP. Continue to edir war and you risk blocking.– Lionel (talk) 00:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Self-published sources are not categorically forbidden. And even if they were, there are plenty of sources that are not self-published which report Besen's saying the same thing. 76.201.145.83 (talk) 00:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added a non-self published source to the article which supports the statement. This issue is addressed per your own stated requirements. 76.201.145.83 (talk) 00:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]