Talk:OutRage!

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

Removed 'Queerest of Conspiracies'

This book - Henry, David Joseph. "Queerest of Conspiracies", London, Atlantic Print, 2005 - does not appear on Google Books, Copac or WorldCat under this title. I have removed it as suspect, perhaps the title was incorrectly typed?—Ash (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Position regarding age of consent laws

I do not see the box for starting a new discussion. This concerns the undo of my edit stating that Outrage is working to repeal age-of-consent laws, which is certainly true from their own website. My edit was truthful and sourced. The NPOV problem is in not including it. Why was there no discussion beforehand? NPOV is for editors, not the subjects of articles.16:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by David4442 (talk • contribs)

twice now my edit has been undone with no explanation in discussion. Please state the reasons for undoing my edit. Please note Wikipedia policies regarding a third undo. Without an explanation, i am undoing the undo. 24.206.128.207 (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid contributing from your logged in account and an anonymous IP address in the same conversation.

The explanation was in the edit comments of the change and on your user talk page. The source you are quoting does not back up the statement you have repeatedly added to the article. Your statement that Outrage supports "legalisation of homosexual pedophilia" misses the point that Outrage are making on the page you are linking to and consequently it appears that you are promoting an unsubstantiated non-neutral point of view.—Ash (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the I.P., i overlooked singing and it was not purposeful.

Third opinion

Hi, I'm responding to a request for a third opinion. I checked the http://rosecottage.me.uk/OutRage-archives/2000h07SexOffRev.htm page which was provided by David4442 as a citation for the following line:

"Currently OutRage! advocates legalisation of homosexual pedophilia, demanding the entire repeal of age of consent laws."

The text there does not sufficiently support that specific wording. If the page cited is considered a reliable source of encyclopedic information, the line may be edited for compliance ("advocates the repeal of age of consent laws" for example). — Athaenara ✉ 02:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the sentence. They're certainly not promoting "legalisation of homosexual pedophilia", or trying to repeal age of consent laws altogether - they just disagree with the criminalization of sexual activity between partners "of similar ages", one or more of whom is a statutory minor, in situations not involving "pressure, manipulation or exploitation." Az29 (talk) 02:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the whole page it is clear that they wish for, to use their example, a 19 year old and 13 year old to engage in consenting sex lawfully. This is pedophilia. An adult having sex with a minor IS pedophilia.

dictionary.com:

pedophilia –noun Psychiatry. sexual desire in an adult for a child.

David4442 (talk) 07:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You argument is an example of WP:SYNTH. I would go so far as to say that it is a good example of why the rules on synthesis exist. As far as I know, no reliable source has described Outrage's position as promoting the legalisation of paedophilia. Indeed, I can image that if you asked a representative of Outrage they would say that they are promoting a different definition of paedophilia. The definition would take relative age into account. I'm sure they would also say that acts which paedophilic under their own definition should still be illegal. Yaris678 (talk) 12:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thik you shoulod review WP:SYNTH. In order for synthesis to have occured i would have had to take two sources and combine them into a conclusionthat neither one of them said. All i have done is quote a leader of Outrage! on their position regading age of consent laws. Synthesis is not possible in quoting someone. If you feel that the siuation needs clarified rather as to what Outrage! believes is victimless crime, feel free to include that properly sourced information. David4442 (talk) 06:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad this has all quietened down now. Just to clarify, the reason the statement was an example of synthesis was because it was based on combining a statement (by OutRage) with a definition (from dictionary.com). Yaris678 (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(note) The quote in question from Tatchell is from 2000, so the word "currently" is out of place as not only is the quote from a decade ago, the active status of OutRage! itself with regard to these policies is unclear.—Ash (talk) 07:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The quote in question is CURRENTLY posted on their web site. It is not for wikipedia to decide that is not really their position. If they decide to change their website to reflect a clearer position then perhaps the quote might become inappropriate. I am sure that Tatchell said a number of other things a decade ago that Outrage currently pursues. The article should tell the whole story. Wikipedia is not a PR organization for the LGBT agenda.David4442 (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, please check again. The rosecottage site that you quote is not the original outrage.org.uk site as explained in the Status section of the article. Versions of the original can be found at at the independent web archive, for example http://web.archive.org/web/19991201100029/http://www.outrage.org.uk but the original no longer exists and consequently the word "currently" (even when shouted in upper-case) has no meaning here.

Making any further claims about a "LGBT agenda" on talk pages will count as using the page as a soapbox and a form of defamation. Please stick to the facts.—Ash (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's stick to wikipedia policy. So far as i know there is no policy that says only the original Outrage! website can be used. If i must be frank, Ash, you are the one who started off calling my good faith edits "vandalism" when they wer nothing of the sort. I don't understand why you call my editing "vandalism" but when i remind you of the purpose of Wikipedia you claim i am on a soapbox. If you want to add something to fix my edits, such as saying, "ten years ago peter tatchell explained:" or "according to Rosecottage.org," this is fine wit me. It is a fact that Outrage is advocating the repeal of age of consent laws. Show me otherwise. Otherwise the Tatchell quote stays. Wikipedia's purpose is encyclopedic. I wish you would be friendlier in getting the editing done rather than accusing those you disagree with of vandalism from the very start.David4442 (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not object to using the rosecottage website as a reference, I clearly pointed out that it was an archive version not the original.
I started off reverting your edit in good faith, I did not call it vandalism at that point. I reverted your edit once as vandalism (pointing out on your talk page that your edit was pushing a non-neutral point of view not supported by the sources) but have not reverted your edits since then, using the WP:3O process instead. Please check the edit history before making accusations of bad faith.
Presuming there must be a gay agenda is using Wikipedia as a soapbox to promote the right wing concept of a gay agenda.
I was objecting to calling the quotation "current" when it is from an archive of a site that no longer exists and the text was written 10 years ago.

—Ash (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Status of Outrage! ?

Listening to a talk by Peter Tatchell in February 2010, he mentioned Outrage! as a functioning group, giving the impression it was active and independent of him. As the website is no longer active, perhaps someone is aware of recent reliable sources that make it clear what the status of the group is? Has it still got an active committee or is it devolved into, say, an eclectic social group? Ash (talk) 14:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Morris?

Why is there a link to the page for Chris Morris, and then no other mention of him in the whole article let alone the proceeding section?94.0.25.255 (talk) 01:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]