This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Almost the sole source for fagtivism on Wikipedia. Everybody famous in history, if only allegedly so, is definitely a secret homo in this author's words. It's a shame that this single source is allowed to destroy Wikipedia credibility on almost every article it is introduced. If it's so true, then where are other corroborating legitimate sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.43.129.160 ( talk) 21:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
It's not a conspiracy to hide or cover up history, just one to rewrite it. That's what happens with tendentious editors having the gay agenda. It's about triumphalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.43.129.160 ( talk) 21:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
A spade is a spade. I would not criticize the use of Crompton if it were consistently in the majority. In fact, most inclusion of his source is the sole support for allegations about famous individuals. His stuff is used for pretty obscure claims, and very little evidence is found outside of it--mostly unsubstantiated. I can pretty much guarantee it. Look at the articles about James VI/I and Buckingham, etc. Anywhere Crompton is used on Wikipedia, his work is in the minority, and actually blown out of proportion in size compared to all other relevant and pertinent non-sexuality related information, but nevertheless, gay activist Wikipedia editors make believe it is gospel for their cause, and so force the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.43.129.160 ( talk) 22:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
It is perfectly acceptable to make an observation on the fact of tendentious editing. Do you just allow the elephant in the room to go unnoticed? I am not covering my eyes, ears, and mouth on this issue like those three monkeys.
Is Louis Crompton a reliable source to assert the homosexuality of deceased individuals? DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 22:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Benedetto Varchi. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Almost the sole source for fagtivism on Wikipedia. Everybody famous in history, if only allegedly so, is definitely a secret homo in this author's words. It's a shame that this single source is allowed to destroy Wikipedia credibility on almost every article it is introduced. If it's so true, then where are other corroborating legitimate sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.43.129.160 ( talk) 21:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
It's not a conspiracy to hide or cover up history, just one to rewrite it. That's what happens with tendentious editors having the gay agenda. It's about triumphalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.43.129.160 ( talk) 21:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
A spade is a spade. I would not criticize the use of Crompton if it were consistently in the majority. In fact, most inclusion of his source is the sole support for allegations about famous individuals. His stuff is used for pretty obscure claims, and very little evidence is found outside of it--mostly unsubstantiated. I can pretty much guarantee it. Look at the articles about James VI/I and Buckingham, etc. Anywhere Crompton is used on Wikipedia, his work is in the minority, and actually blown out of proportion in size compared to all other relevant and pertinent non-sexuality related information, but nevertheless, gay activist Wikipedia editors make believe it is gospel for their cause, and so force the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.43.129.160 ( talk) 22:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
It is perfectly acceptable to make an observation on the fact of tendentious editing. Do you just allow the elephant in the room to go unnoticed? I am not covering my eyes, ears, and mouth on this issue like those three monkeys.
Is Louis Crompton a reliable source to assert the homosexuality of deceased individuals? DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 22:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Benedetto Varchi. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)