![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
I see there's no disucssion here, so I'm just letting whoever know that I jiggled some words around and created some section headings, re-ordered by time-line, and suggseted a possible merge of material into here on the 1974 rally. Mish ( talk) 14:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I have incorporated the text from the other article. I will delete the text there and point it to here in a few days. Mish ( talk) 14:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Apparently no longer in existence or a registered charity. Shall hunt details and amend page appropriately. Kay Dekker ( talk) 19:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Some are dotted about still using the name, not many.
CHE is a small band of men these days, nothing like a significant group and it is not representative of the gay community as a whole, just its remaining membership. For those abroad the original article seems to have been wrote by CHE, the group has been down to two or three men for years. Ask any gay man in the UK who CHE is and most won't know, but they know Stonewall and Outrage. The article gives the wrong impression to people outside the UK that CHE are a major player, they have not been for around 25 years.
The Campaign for Homosexual Equality, CHE for short, are a voluntary members organisation
[1] covering England and Wales, funded by membership and open to members who support its aims. CHE were formed in 1969 as the successor to the North West [Homosexual Law Reform Society] Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).
The aims of the CHE shall be to:
promote the principle that the homosexual has an equal right to self-fulfilment and can make an equally positive contribution in our common quest for the betterment of society and the happiness of all;
fight for absolute equality at law between heterosexuals and homosexuals and campaign against all forms of legal and social discrimination against homosexuals;
campaign for improved sex education in schools in order to stop the process by which existing attitudes towards homosexuals are maintained.
ensure that the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered community gains full advantage from the legislation which follows implementation of the Human Rights Act.
The CHE is represented by a group of six members who form its Executive committee who are annually elected from by its members. CHE's policies are determined at annual members conference. [2]
http://www.campaignforhomosexualequality.org.uk/che-leaflet-2009.pdf
http://www.campaignforhomosexualequality.org.uk/history.htm
http://www.campaignforhomosexualequality.org.uk/constitution.htm
http://www.pinktriangle.org.uk/glh/221/dyson.html
The above should be in the article somewhere as this is the groups legal status and illustrates its aims and ojectives.
References
It seemed to make little sense to have a section "Activities post 2000" separated from the rest of the chronological story by the items about Friend and publications, so I've moved this part further up, added some headings, and also added some further information about more recent events.-- rossb ( talk) 09:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
My properly sourced edits of this and other related articles are being reverted by a fellow Wikipedian, whose argument for similar reverts of contributions of other users is mostly "Make your case on talk". Please advise if you concur that such edits be removed, as I am convinced that they are encyclopedic and not even WP:BRD. Thank you. Zezen ( talk) 23:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Dear Alarics, Thank you for your opinion. You are alas mistaken that their position against paedos was crystal clear. The reverse was true, for years they were clear in their support for active paedophile: please read the (deleted) sources that I gave in my edit.
Not only did CHE support paedophile rights, but even admitted in its official resolution that there were many paedophiles in CHE, Mr House y compris, who in fact drafted their policies. I quote from the deleted ref: "The successful resolution [of CHE says that] 'There are many gay paedophiles, in and out of CHE, yet their needs and feelings are ignored in frequent attempts to dissociate them from the gay movement' ". Here is the unaltered scan of the Guardian article, if you do not believe me: https://spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/child-lovers-win-fight-for-more-active-role-in-gay-lib-26-8-75/ Please answer. Zezen ( talk) 17:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
So long as strict care is taken to ensure that the information is accurate, I cannot see why CHE's stance on PIE should not be mentioned briefly. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 00:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for some delay in replying. Alarics, you do not read our arguments fully when claiming, without providing refs that "most certainly not the case", "it cites no source for its claim". For brevity, I wrote "see http://buddybuddy.com/consent.html#chart and Age of consent reform for more sources." If you click the latter, the Wikipedia article that is, you will see the sources which were accepted therein for the buddybuddy.com citation. I requote them for your convenience:
Matthew Waites (15 August 2009). The Age of Consent: Young People, Sexuality and Citizenship. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-230-23718-6. (Google books link)[...] (2005, op.cit., pp. 132 and 243, Note 6.6) Gay News, no. 46, 9 May 1974, p.3 – 'CHE Report angers reformers'.
So 3 Wikipedians are for, supported by sources and other Wiki articles claiming the same, while 2 Wikipedians are against, without providing sources for their rebuttals, only giving their subjective take on Wikipedia policies.
The consensus has thus been reached, so I restore my edits. If one feels strongly against this consensus, please escalate to the arbitration level. Zezen ( talk) 17:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Snowded: I am retracting my most recent comment about your edits herein, as you finally kept the sources. Thank you for agreeing to the consensus. I am sorry for (now deleted) my comments: I was basing them on your previous edits, which were deleting the content and refs en masse. Now you restored them and reedited the content. I am happy about this version now Zezen ( talk) 10:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
(Active RfC tag was here, removed)
My newest contribution (discoveries of additional cases of CHE->PIE support) has been reverted, with argument of WP:WEIGHT again. See the talk section above, where we had reached consensus to leave the gist (the refs) of my previous similar contributions. The RfC is thus as follows:
Should the newest historical cases of such actions and support be also mentioned (as has been the case therein after reaching the previous consensus) or completely removed for the reason(s) given by the other editor?
Zezen ( talk) 14:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your votes. You convinced me it is not that notable. I close this RfC hereby. Zezen ( talk) 05:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Campaign for Homosexual Equality. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Campaign for Homosexual Equality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Campaign for Homosexual Equality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Campaign for Homosexual Equality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Campaign for Homosexual Equality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
The article has a vast number of issues in regards to unreliable sources and in many cases information added that did not match the source cited, the article has been reworded using independent reliable sources. It is a major edit, it can be built upon using sourced material. Use of a source commissioned and controlled by the same organisation the article is about is not independent, this especially applies to statements that were present intended to lead the reader to believe this was a far bigger and influential organisation than it was. It is of questionable notability and a case can be made for article deletion. At this stage a bold edit was required and undertaken, there are still issues within the article and it would benefit from building up once more sources can be found. The organisations support of Paedophiles and child abusers was known fact, people and other organisations distanced themselves on that becoming known. I would like to hear the case for notability -- Pennine rambler ( talk) 01:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
I see there's no disucssion here, so I'm just letting whoever know that I jiggled some words around and created some section headings, re-ordered by time-line, and suggseted a possible merge of material into here on the 1974 rally. Mish ( talk) 14:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I have incorporated the text from the other article. I will delete the text there and point it to here in a few days. Mish ( talk) 14:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Apparently no longer in existence or a registered charity. Shall hunt details and amend page appropriately. Kay Dekker ( talk) 19:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Some are dotted about still using the name, not many.
CHE is a small band of men these days, nothing like a significant group and it is not representative of the gay community as a whole, just its remaining membership. For those abroad the original article seems to have been wrote by CHE, the group has been down to two or three men for years. Ask any gay man in the UK who CHE is and most won't know, but they know Stonewall and Outrage. The article gives the wrong impression to people outside the UK that CHE are a major player, they have not been for around 25 years.
The Campaign for Homosexual Equality, CHE for short, are a voluntary members organisation
[1] covering England and Wales, funded by membership and open to members who support its aims. CHE were formed in 1969 as the successor to the North West [Homosexual Law Reform Society] Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).
The aims of the CHE shall be to:
promote the principle that the homosexual has an equal right to self-fulfilment and can make an equally positive contribution in our common quest for the betterment of society and the happiness of all;
fight for absolute equality at law between heterosexuals and homosexuals and campaign against all forms of legal and social discrimination against homosexuals;
campaign for improved sex education in schools in order to stop the process by which existing attitudes towards homosexuals are maintained.
ensure that the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered community gains full advantage from the legislation which follows implementation of the Human Rights Act.
The CHE is represented by a group of six members who form its Executive committee who are annually elected from by its members. CHE's policies are determined at annual members conference. [2]
http://www.campaignforhomosexualequality.org.uk/che-leaflet-2009.pdf
http://www.campaignforhomosexualequality.org.uk/history.htm
http://www.campaignforhomosexualequality.org.uk/constitution.htm
http://www.pinktriangle.org.uk/glh/221/dyson.html
The above should be in the article somewhere as this is the groups legal status and illustrates its aims and ojectives.
References
It seemed to make little sense to have a section "Activities post 2000" separated from the rest of the chronological story by the items about Friend and publications, so I've moved this part further up, added some headings, and also added some further information about more recent events.-- rossb ( talk) 09:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
My properly sourced edits of this and other related articles are being reverted by a fellow Wikipedian, whose argument for similar reverts of contributions of other users is mostly "Make your case on talk". Please advise if you concur that such edits be removed, as I am convinced that they are encyclopedic and not even WP:BRD. Thank you. Zezen ( talk) 23:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Dear Alarics, Thank you for your opinion. You are alas mistaken that their position against paedos was crystal clear. The reverse was true, for years they were clear in their support for active paedophile: please read the (deleted) sources that I gave in my edit.
Not only did CHE support paedophile rights, but even admitted in its official resolution that there were many paedophiles in CHE, Mr House y compris, who in fact drafted their policies. I quote from the deleted ref: "The successful resolution [of CHE says that] 'There are many gay paedophiles, in and out of CHE, yet their needs and feelings are ignored in frequent attempts to dissociate them from the gay movement' ". Here is the unaltered scan of the Guardian article, if you do not believe me: https://spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/child-lovers-win-fight-for-more-active-role-in-gay-lib-26-8-75/ Please answer. Zezen ( talk) 17:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
So long as strict care is taken to ensure that the information is accurate, I cannot see why CHE's stance on PIE should not be mentioned briefly. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 00:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for some delay in replying. Alarics, you do not read our arguments fully when claiming, without providing refs that "most certainly not the case", "it cites no source for its claim". For brevity, I wrote "see http://buddybuddy.com/consent.html#chart and Age of consent reform for more sources." If you click the latter, the Wikipedia article that is, you will see the sources which were accepted therein for the buddybuddy.com citation. I requote them for your convenience:
Matthew Waites (15 August 2009). The Age of Consent: Young People, Sexuality and Citizenship. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-230-23718-6. (Google books link)[...] (2005, op.cit., pp. 132 and 243, Note 6.6) Gay News, no. 46, 9 May 1974, p.3 – 'CHE Report angers reformers'.
So 3 Wikipedians are for, supported by sources and other Wiki articles claiming the same, while 2 Wikipedians are against, without providing sources for their rebuttals, only giving their subjective take on Wikipedia policies.
The consensus has thus been reached, so I restore my edits. If one feels strongly against this consensus, please escalate to the arbitration level. Zezen ( talk) 17:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Snowded: I am retracting my most recent comment about your edits herein, as you finally kept the sources. Thank you for agreeing to the consensus. I am sorry for (now deleted) my comments: I was basing them on your previous edits, which were deleting the content and refs en masse. Now you restored them and reedited the content. I am happy about this version now Zezen ( talk) 10:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
(Active RfC tag was here, removed)
My newest contribution (discoveries of additional cases of CHE->PIE support) has been reverted, with argument of WP:WEIGHT again. See the talk section above, where we had reached consensus to leave the gist (the refs) of my previous similar contributions. The RfC is thus as follows:
Should the newest historical cases of such actions and support be also mentioned (as has been the case therein after reaching the previous consensus) or completely removed for the reason(s) given by the other editor?
Zezen ( talk) 14:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your votes. You convinced me it is not that notable. I close this RfC hereby. Zezen ( talk) 05:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Campaign for Homosexual Equality. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Campaign for Homosexual Equality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Campaign for Homosexual Equality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Campaign for Homosexual Equality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Campaign for Homosexual Equality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
The article has a vast number of issues in regards to unreliable sources and in many cases information added that did not match the source cited, the article has been reworded using independent reliable sources. It is a major edit, it can be built upon using sourced material. Use of a source commissioned and controlled by the same organisation the article is about is not independent, this especially applies to statements that were present intended to lead the reader to believe this was a far bigger and influential organisation than it was. It is of questionable notability and a case can be made for article deletion. At this stage a bold edit was required and undertaken, there are still issues within the article and it would benefit from building up once more sources can be found. The organisations support of Paedophiles and child abusers was known fact, people and other organisations distanced themselves on that becoming known. I would like to hear the case for notability -- Pennine rambler ( talk) 01:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)