Talk:Mark Simpson (journalist)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


The article says (emphasis added): "His highly controversial collection Anti-Gay (1996)... began what came to be known as the "post-gay" movement, and pre-empted a series of gay books critical of gay culture.[citations needed]"

See the definition of pre-empted at [1].

As it stands now, the article implies that because the collection "Anti-Gay" appeared, other books that were going to appear did not appear.

Is that true? Is the case that those who contributed essays to "Anti-Gay" were going to write their own books, and decided instead just to contribute an essay to "Anti-Gay"?

Or was the writer's intended meaning that "Anti-Gay" was the first of several such books to appear?

If so, would it be better to say something like "inspired" or "led to" or "was in the vanguard of" instead of pre-empted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pconrad0 (talkcontribs) 15:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, 'pre-empted' was the wrong word. Anti-Gay anticipated not 'pre-empted' those books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EdWelthorpe (talkcontribs) 10:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Childish posts[edit]

Anonymous User: added: It is perhaps proof of how controversial 'Anti-Gay' was that even ten years after its publication some aggrieved gayists feel compelled to persistently post childishly libellous statements about it and Simpson on this page.

I have moved this note to this Talk page rather than making the Wikipage a self referencing discussion. Please use this Talk page for future similar complaints. You may also find Wikipedia:Vandalism useful if you want to flag users who damage the page with false information as vandals.-- Ashley VH 14:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV, Personal Attack, whatever[edit]

Sure, criticizing quotes have their place in an article, but the opening paragraph? Really? (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Instead of deleting these well sourced quotes (some used to promote his books), those editors who disagree with them being in the opening paragraph could try moving them into the main body of the page. I do not see these quotes in violation of any WP guidance I'm aware of and deleting them would appear in contradiction to WP:NOTCENSORED as they are well known quotations widely published.—Ashleyvh (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
WP:LEAD; the lead should be a clear summary of the entire article, and should give relative emphasis. "One journalist thinks he's a cunt, but Julie Burchill thinks he's great!" isn't a very insightful explanation of who this person is.
Presumably editors haven't moved these quotes into the main body of the article, because they don't know what the quotes were in relation to. If you feel this is important, perhaps you could provide some context? --McGeddon (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
It clearly fails the requirements of WP:LEAD, and should be placed somewhere else in the article, if not deleted. — R2 21:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It is clearly not important enough for the lead. It could go to the main text in the section about the particular book, but also doesn't seem important enough for that. There does not seem to be any reason to include it, and a bowlderised quote simply looks unproffesional. Why this quote? How does it inform the reader more than any of hundreds of other possible quotes? Note that it is also not properly sourced or given context.YobMod 22:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I've cut the Burchill quote ("if they took my brain out, Invasion of the Body Snatchers-style, yours is the brain that I'd want them to put in"), as it just seems to be something nice she said about him in an interview, and is mostly about herself. If she was Warhol or Gandhi or someone then it might be worth repeating here, but this just looks like interview fluff. --McGeddon (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. No quote is needed in the lead, unless it is really important to his notability.YobMod 07:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Canvas 8 Reference Removed[edit]

This material was behind a paywall. Please find openly-sourced material. Bavb (talk) 10:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

A source being behind a WP:PAYWALL is not in itself a reason to discard it. What did you mean by "and appears to be original research", though? --McGeddon (talk) 10:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
It looks like a Market Research Firms report/whitepaper. Is that a reliable source?
Bavb (talk) 11:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Spornosexual[edit]

The neologism "spornosexual" isn't notable on its own, but does have enough press to be mentioned in the Mark Simpson article. Ahecht (TALK
) 14:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I added the information to the page and expanded on it a bit. Hopefully I got the gist of it right. Interesting topic. (Tigerghost (talk) 04:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC))