Talk:Peter Tatchell

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineePeter Tatchell was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 5, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed

Bermondsey By Election[edit]

I've revised some edits introduced on Sept 6th as they were both unsourced and very partizan, not at all from a NPOV, I'd suggest that a lot of that section be taken out and linked back to the main article on the election, but I'm not a regular editor, merely both an admirer of Tatchell and a member of the LibDems.89.243.108.159 18:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)MatGB[reply]

Green issues[edit]

Peter is spending a lot of time nowadays campaigning and speaking on green issues: see [1]. I know he is not very satisfied with the balance of the current article, in which little is written about this area of his work. I might add something in this regard later, but someone might beat me to it in fleshing it out. – Kaihsu 21:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added such a section. The reference format needs adjusting. – Kaihsu 23:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


POV[edit]

Is this an article, or autobiographical hagiography? Its length is far disproportionate to its subject's importance and it is permeated with what is obviously Tatchell's POV on himself. IN particular, user User:Relata refero persistently vandalizes the article by removing any critical information or references. P.humanrights (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article is far too long, in fact rather tedious and quite unreadable. I would welcome any editing you could contribute to trim it down. With regard to User:Relata refero his/her edit history on the page seems well reasoned with references to Wikipedia guides in each case (such as repeatedly attempting to trim the summary section in accordance with WP:LEAD). I suggest if you are keen to keep the text involved (as per your most recent undoing of User:Relata refero's edits) you move it down into one of the subsections. I notice there are lots of helpful links added to your own talk page and I can recommend working through some of the guides to ensure your own edits stick. --Ashley VH (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note that the source for the letter referenced by Stay out of African LGBTI issues is a blog. Blog references are frequently removed by wikipedians following the guidance of WP:SPS. If you could find a published source (such as a newspaper or magazine) for the letter in question, as well as adding the reference in a subsection rather than the summary, this will be much more likely to stick. As an example you may find Duff, Oliver (2007-02-01). "Outrage in Africa: gay rights campaigners target Tatchell". The Independant. Retrieved 2008-02-07. a good alternative. --Ashley VH (talk) 08:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the word notoriety to celebrity to describe his arrest of Mugabe to maintain NPOV. Quite a few people supported him arresting Mugabe.JohnG62 (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References to petertatchell.net and WP:SPS[edit]

The article is highly reliant on copied text and references to www.petertatchell.net, Peter Tatchell's campaign website. As many of his published articles can be found in newspapers (such as the Guardian) or magazines (such as Gay Times) would it be considered contentious if I were to strip out these references in line with WP:SPS? --Ashley VH (talk) 08:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better to replace with better sources or double up on refs if that's the issue. The subject of a biography is considered an expert on themselves. I almost never support removing sources as it's usually helpful to have extra confirmation on sourcing. Benjiboi 04:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External linked articles with no in-line reference[edit]

Moved these here as they had been previously flagged but none has been changed to in-line sources so far:

-- Ashley VH (talk) 13:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bermondsey by-election[edit]

There should be some comment in this article about Tatchell's insistence, during the 1983 Bermondsey by-election campaign, that he was not gay. This caused a furore at the time and should not be forgotten. It sheds an interesting light on his later zealous gay rights activism. Adding such information would not constitute vandalism, even though it may be unpalatable to Tatchell and his supporters to be reminded of this episode. 86.142.150.112 (talk) 09:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that if this were true it would be very interesting; can you quote an authoritative source? Ashley VH (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as a would-have-been candidate in Bermondsey in 1983, I can assure you that there were several stories concerning Peter Tatchell and particularly homosexuality current at the time, none of which showed him in a good or positive light, but equally not suitable for publication, the libel laws and Wikipedia guidelines being what they are. Guy (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references ![edit]

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "gnews1" :
    • [http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release.jsp?releaseid=11031 Mayor of London supports rights of gays and lesbians to peacefully demonstrate throughout Eastern Europe including Moscow] - Mayor of Londons Office - [[February 28]], [[2007]].
    • [http://www.ukgaynews.org.uk/Archive/07/March/0102.htm Gay Pride Parade Wars: Livingstone Attacks Tatchell and Alexeyev Attacks Livingstone] - UK [[Gay News]] - [[March 01]], [[2007]].
  • "Respect2Way" :
    • [http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/peter_tatchell/2006/10/muslim_hypocrisy_on_free_speec.html "Respect is a two-way street"] Guardian "Comment is Free" article (as commenter)
    • [http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/peter_tatchell/2006/10/muslim_hypocrisy_on_free_speec.html "Respect is a two-way street"] Guardian "Comment is Free" article (as commenter)

DumZiBoT (talk) 01:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of pruning needed[edit]

I'm here in response to a posting on WP:BLP and think that the article needs to be shortened a bit so that we can see the wood for the trees. I'll have a go at that now. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Graduation[edit]

Does anybody have a source to show he is the only member of his family with a degree?

If we are unable to source it fairly quickly I will remove it. Lukeyboyuk (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Lukeyboyuk (talk) 12:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cornwall[edit]

"one of the most high-profile campaigners for Cornish rights" http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/news/Tatchell-s-town-home-rule-Cornish/article-1245032-detail/article.html

This is a new article about Tatchell, and I feel some of it could be worked in on the Cornwall section. Bodrugan (talk) 16:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a part about Tatchell being shocked at how many comments there were expressing anti-Cornish sentiment, but when I looked at them there were hardly any. (90.220.249.111 (talk) 05:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Public Profile[edit]

The article's introduction does seem to fawn over Tatchell, ignoring totally the fact that he seems to be viewed by a proportion of the gay community as a self-aggrandising publicity seeker. To quote Ian Hislop, "I don't dislike Peter Tatchell because he's gay, I dislike him because he's Peter Tatchell."

Surely there is a comparison here with US civil rights activist Jesse Jackson, who uses ill-conceived publicity stunts to raise his political profile (e.g. appearing on a chat show in a blood-stained shirt fraudulently claiming to have cradled the dying Martin Luther King).

Maybe the introduction should take a more balanced view weighing Tatchell's ideals and good work against his sometimes questionable methods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrstonky (talk • contribs) 05:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More or less impossible...[edit]

In the article it states that, "...Tatchell worked out that trajectory of the bullet through the warder’s body made it more or less physically impossible that Ryan could have fired the fatal shot" This is an absurd statement. Either it was impossible or it was not. The word impossible is absolute. Perhaps the author intended to suggest that Thatchell's calculations indicated to him that it was unlikely that Ryan fired the shot, or perhaps the author did not mean to include the phrase, "more or less" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.233.172 (talk) 11:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Human Rights Activist (again)[edit]

I know this has been discussed previously but I think it is worth revisiting. In my opinion "political activist" is a better description of Peter Tatchell rather than "human rights activist". Recently he has been engaging in political crusades which by labelling him a "human rights activist" lend a non neutral POV to his views.

Looking at two items in particular cause concern. (1) The visit of the Pope to the UK last year - Peter was very vocal in his criticism and sought to have the Pope arrested. This is something which many of the UK's Catholic population found offensive. (2) The banking crisis - Peter has also been very vocal on this topic. He has pressed to see Bankers arrested and was vocal in his support of those protestors involved in the March 26th riots in London.

I am not seeking to get into debate on the merits of either view. My contention is that Peter Tatchell holds views and seeks to publicise those views which impinge on the human rights of others. By calling him a human rights activist it gives tacit support to those views. Wiki is supposed to offer neutrality at all times. Political activist is more factually accurate and and a far less loaded term. Sue De Nimes (talk) 14:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also the infobox lists him as a political campaigner - surely this should tally with the lead paragraph? Sue De Nimes (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Size of article[edit]

Does Peter Tatchell really deserve an article of this magnitude?

Surely the size of the article is not a fair refection of the subject. A lot of it reads as if it is a personal PR piece. Sue De Nimes (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's because it is a personal PR piece! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.63.43 (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC) I just did a quick tally. This article at the moment comes in at 11,500 words. Robert Mugabe comes in at 11789,Harold MacMillan 7716, Tony Blair 7455, Gordon Brown 6257, John Major 6504, Malcolm X 8787, Mother Theresa 5985. Those figures are rough and ready and include everything bar references. He has an article roughly twice the size of the last three UK PMs. This really needs a lot of pruning. Sue De Nimes (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll defend it from claims it's a PR piece, but I would suggest and support merging "Political activity" and "Campaigns" into one much smaller subsection. Those two sections are too long and go into too much detail. I think giving a much more basic summary under a section such as "Political views and campaigning" or something similar. Anoldtreeok (talk) 23:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He has accomplished a great deal and has had a career spanning 44 years of constant work. Yes, he does deserve an article of this magnitude. Totorotroll (talk) 17:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think he is nearly twice as notable as John Major, Tony Blair or Gordon Brown? He hasn't achieved much at all of consequence. I do intend to edit his political activity and campaigns sections down substantially when I get a moment. If someone else has the time though please fire away!Sue De Nimes (talk) 23:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sue, this is wikipedia. The size of the article is not related to the sigificance of the subject. You get what is written about you within the rules, not what you "deserve". You can edit out stuff for being unverified or not following Wiki rules, but not just because you think there is too much of it Epeeist smudge (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC) I am afraid I have to disagree. Should we allow someone to list what he had for breakfast this morning if there is a reliable source? What about his favorite breakfast cereal? 87.194.162.141 (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think some of you people appreciate how important Peter Tatchell is for British gay rights. If his article is not as long as Tony Blair's, that's an argument for increasing Blair's rather than decreasing Tatchell's. When I was young, gays had hardly any rights in Britain. Now Britain is one of the most gay-friendly countries in the world. That's a big achievement and Tatchell did as much as anyone to achieve that. Epa101 (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
this article has gone beyond a joke. A very poor advert for Wikipedia. It's a hagiography, a tedious minutiae of everything Tatchell's ever said or done, his critics' responses, and Tatchell's counter-responses ad nauseum... with commentary! Is it just going to continue to metastasize forever? Tatchell is an interesting figure, but this article does him no favours at all. I tried to make some fair and reasonable cuts but of course they were reverted. RodCrosby (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted them because you had not secured any consensus for the changes before unilaterally chopping out big chunks. This went beyond the "pruning" of your edit summary. Maybe the article is too long, but get wider support first. -- Alarics (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
and you then go on to do the same. Sorry, I didn't know this article 'belonged' to you. WP really is a joke sometimes. RodCrosby (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't belong to anyone. I have done some rather less brutal pruning which I hope shows that it is possible to cut out some excess fat without losing significant points. -- Alarics (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

T in LGBT?[edit]

The term "LGBT" is used throughout the article for his campaigning. I'm sure that is what he would identify himself as now, but isn't it applying a modern label retrospectively to his earlier "Gay Rights" campaigning. The movement has rebranted itself to LGBT in recent years, but I'm not sure the transexual "T" would neccessarily be correct in the early 90's when just "gay and Lesbian Rights" seemed to be the accepted term. I won't edit becasue I'm not sure about the facts, it just feels wrong. Epeeist smudge (talk) 12:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result of election, post Peter Tatchell departure[edit]

I removed the following content:

"The Green Party candidate who replaced him in the general election five months later secured 1,238 votes against the successful (Labour Party) candidate's 21,938 votes.[2][dead link]][dead link]"

I see it has been put back in. I don't see how the result of an election in which Peter Tatchell did not participate is at all relevant to an article about him. I would be interested in the views of other editors. Peteinterpol (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it material to get an idea of whether he would have been elected had he not been forced to step down because of his illness? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.131.249 (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it was possible to draw that conclusion from the result, then I agree that would be helpful. But what conclusion are we supposed to draw when a different candidate actually stands in the election? Would Peter Tatchell have done better, worse or about the same? We'll never know. For that reason the content adds no value to an article about Peter Tatchell and I propose taking it out. Peteinterpol (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Letter to Guardian in 1997[edit]

There are several blogs that present (what seems to be) the full text of the letter that he sent on the subject of man-boy love in 1997. See these links: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8].

This one includes a comment that Tatchell made on it in 2010, in which he seems to stand by what he wrote.

I think that this letter ought to be quoted in full. At present only half is in the article. I know that none of the links that I've provided is appropriate for Wikipedia and that they may just be copying off one another, but I would also question using Peter Hitchens's blog as the current source for the letter. Hitchens is very conservative and I don't think that as sensitive a subject as this can be left to his blog.

Ideally I would like a better source to be found for the letter and that it be printed in full. If that is not possible, I think that a few words should be added to the article to state that Tatchell was alleged by conservative Peter Hitchens to have written this. Epa101 (talk) 12:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, so if Thatchell respects the perspective of 9-13 year olds giving consent, that means he is in fact an apologist. Why not mention this in the front on his bio, like we do with any conspiracy nut/bad person? Almost as if there was a bias. Any else for this? John Stuart (talk) 12:57, 18 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.233.63.159 (talk) [reply]

"Religion = None" vs. "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (atheist)" in infoboxes.[edit]

Per WP:BRD and WP:TALKDONTREVERT, This comment concerns this edit and [9].

(Please note that nobody has a problem with the use of "Atheist" in the article text. This only concerns infoboxes.)

"Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby." --Penn Jillette

"Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position." --Bill Maher

There are many reasons for not saying "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (atheist)" in Wikipedia infoboxes. They include:

It implies something that is not true

Saying "Religion = Atheist" in Wikipedia infoboxes implies that atheism is a religion. It is like saying "Hair color = Bald", "TV Channel = Off" or "Type of shoe = Barefoot". "Religion = None (atheist)" is better -- it can be read two different ways, only one of which implies that atheism is a religion -- but "Religion = None" is unambiguous.

It is highly objectionable to many atheists.

Many atheists strongly object to calling atheism a religion,[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] and arguments such as "atheism is just another religion: it takes faith to not believe in God" are a standard argument used by religious apologists.[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]

It goes against consensus

This was discussed at length at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 142#Changing "Religion = none" to "Religion = Atheist" on BLP infoboxes. Opinions were mixed, but the two positions with the most support were "Religion = None" or removing the Religion entry entirely.
More recently, it was discussed at Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what?, and again the consensus was for "Religion = None".
On article talk pages and counting the multiple "thank you" notifications I have recieved, there are roughly ten editors favoring "Religion = None" for every editor who opposes it. Of course anyone is free to post an WP:RFC on the subject (I suggest posting it at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion) to get an official count.

It is unsourced

If anyone insists on keeping "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (Atheist)" in any Wikipedia infobox, they must first provide a citation to a reliable source that established that the individual is [A] An atheist, and [B] considers atheism to be a religion. There is at least one page that does have such a source: Ian McKellen. Because we have a reliable source that establishes that Ian McKellen considers atheism to be a religion, his infobox correctly says "Religion: Atheist". In all other cases, the assertion that atheism is a religion is an unsourced claim.

It attempts to shoehorn too much information into a one-word infobox entry

In the article, there is room for nuance and explanation, but in the infobox, we are limited to concise summaries of non-disputed material. Terms such as "atheist", "agnostic", "humanist", "areligious", and "anti-religion" mean different things to different people, but "Religion = None" is perfectly clear to all readers, and they can and should go to the article text to find out which of the subtly different variations of not belonging to a religion applies.

It violates the principle of least astonishment.

Consider what would happen if Lady Gaga decided to list "Banana" as her birth date. We would document that fact in the main article with a citation to a reliable source (along with other sources that disagree and say she was born on March 28, 1986). We would not put "Birth date = Banana" in the infobox, because that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Banana is not a birth date...". Likewise we should not put anything in an infobox that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Atheism is not a religion..."

In many cases, it technically correct, but incomplete to the point of being misleading.

When this came up on Teller (magician), who strongly self-identifies as an atheist, nobody had the slightest problem with saying that Teller is an atheist. It was the claim that atheism is a religion that multiple editors objected to. Penn Jillette wrote "Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby", so we know that Penn objects to having atheism identified as a religion.
In the case of Penn, Teller and many others, they are atheists who reject all theistic religions, but they also reject all non-theistic religions, and a large number of non-religious beliefs. See List of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! episodes for an incomplete list. Atheism just skims the surface of Penn & Teller's unbelief.

In my opinion, "Religion = None" is the best choice for representing the data accurately and without bias. I also have no objection to removing the religion entry entirely. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is under centralised discussion at Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what?. Please continue the discussion there. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While having the editors of this page join the centralized discussion is desirable, I am not comfortable with asking them to not discuss the issue here. The consensus in every centralized discussion so far has favored my position, and I don't want to be seen as forcing my opinion on the folks who have been editing and improving this page. I think this should be a decision made by those who have built this page up, not by an outsider like myself or Ghmyrtle who has never shown any previous interest in this page. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments[edit]

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New image[edit]

I have taken a new photo of Peter Tatchell and added it to the article. At Peter's request, I haven't replaced the current lead photo which he has asked to retain as lead (I think it has some personal importance, and he uses it elsewhere too). -- Colin°Talk 12:19, 5 November 2016 (UTC) As a compromise, I have placed the previous lead image at the start of the Personal life section, as it is a photo of him at home. -- Colin°Talk 21:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Early life[edit]

The subject's parents are described as being a lathe operator and biscuit factory worker respectively when he was born in Coober pedy. There might have been (and maybe still are) lathes in Coober Pedy (servicing prospecting/digging equipment?) but I'm pretty sure there has never been a biscuit factory; but I might be wrong.

Also, (later in the article) maybe it could be explained why an Australian born person could run as a candidate for the UK parliament, and how such a person could avoid conscription in Australia by moving to the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.201.7.235 (talk) 02:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Peter Tatchell[edit]

The claim about the LGBT press 'dubbing' Tatchell as 'Saint Peter Tatchell' seems incomplete, to the point of being misleading. The reference given only refers to him in passing as such, and does not give any explanation. Surely the term is in reference to his canonisation by the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence? In which case, it is not the LGBT press doing the 'dubbbing' (as a general mark of approval), even if some publications are happy to use this term in recognition of his extensive work, and its connection to organised religion. Furthermore, the place of this comment in the article makes it seem as if the 'dubbing' happened as a direct consequence of the Outrage! protest of 12 April 2018, disrupting George Carey's Easter sermon. I don't know whether this was a factor or not, but if so it should be referenced. Unfortunately, the Sisters themselves do not have a very coherent web presence that could serve as a reference, and I would have to do some more searching for an appropriate reference (which I don't currently have time to do). Tatchell is mentioned in the Wikipedia article for the Sisters in the list of 'saints', but there is a 'citation needed' tag. As I don't have enough information I wouldn't want to make an edit myself, but if someone knows more about it then this seems worth clearing up.

And if no clearing up happens, I think it would be preferable to delete this sentence, as in its current form it seems more misleading than informative.

Sjferguson (talk) 13:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV?[edit]

Just to reiterate what someone else said on this page years ago, that this is such a long and detailed article that it's hard to believe it's not written by Tatchell or some supporter of his. So I wonder how neutral it is. Ben Finn (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peter Tatchell - Red Wall - 8by10 - 2016-10-15.jpg scheduled for POTD[edit]

Hello! This is to let editors know that the featured picture File:Peter Tatchell - Red Wall - 8by10 - 2016-10-15.jpg, which is used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for January 25, 2021. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2021-01-25. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Tatchell

Peter Tatchell (born 25 January 1952) is an Australian-born British campaigner, author, journalist and broadcaster who speaks out on various issues of human rights and social justice. His attempts to promote the enforcement of international human-rights law have included efforts to secure the prosecution of Henry Kissinger on war crimes, and he attempted a citizen's arrest of Zimbabwean president Robert Mugabe in 1999 and again in 2001.

Photograph credit: Colin

Recently featured:

Delete foundation article, merge here[edit]

I am not seeing sources or development which independently establishing the organization beyond this person's biography. I propose deletion with a merge of content to here. If anyone has thoughts then comment please. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021[edit]

Last month a further development on the issue of Peter's contributions to the Betrayal of Youth book came up, i.e., https://preview.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/07/27/peter-tatchell-children-have-sexual-desires-early-age/ namely, a favourable review of the book ostensibly authored by Peter Tatchell had appeared. This was placed as an edit as it is of direct relevance to the preceding part of the section. It was deleted and the reason given was that the Telegraph article didn't contain the substance of the edit: it most clearly does, & anyone can check if they want to verify (link above). Now, there has arisen an issue from Irish editor(s) who seem to have come to the Tatchell page solely because of slurs made about the Minister for Children in Ireland who got unjustified targeting after having photos taken with Peter T. a couple of years ago. As a result, two things have happened: (1) The issue of Minister O'Gorman has been given undue coverage in this section of the PT page, (2) The Irish editor(s) are restricting uncontested material from the page as they believe their purpose here should be to protect the Irish Minister's reputation rather than give an unbiased article on Peter Tatchell that is accurate and keeps apace of developments, and in so doing have assumed a bias that this part of P.T.'s writing is somehow part of the earlier discrediting campaign against Mr. O'Gorman. I've reinstated the edit. Clean up, by all means, but coverage of the new development needs to stay. [Contribution by 37.228.200.43 made with this edit moved from another a 13-year-old section above]

1) I've no idea why you inserted the above in a section that covers an entirely different subject, that was last edited in 2008 - as a result, I missed the addition until now. I therefore moved your remarks to here.
2) No "further developments" occurred last month, and it's bizarre that you'd say so. All that seems to have happened is that the The Telegraph wrote about Tatchell's review of a book (though apparently not actually his review, as it was written by someone else), and the review they're talking about was already published over three decades ago. Why would that be in any way relevant for inclusion?! See WP:NOTNEWS.
3) You first sourced this addition to Gript. Our WP:RS/N has already ruled that that site is not reliable.
4) You wrote "Certain discrepancies concerning these earlier statements that he was unaware of the book's subject and that he had been angered that his chapter was used in a book condoning paedophilia have since arisen as a result." Apart from being a grammatical mess, the Telegraph source does not mentions any "discrepancies", so this all appears to be your own point of view or interpretation.
5) Where editors are from is irrelevant. It doesn't matter that I'm from Ireland, or that you're living in Dungarvan. If you add material - especially in an NPOV fashion - expect it to be edited. The inclusion of any material here on O'Gorman is clearly WP:COATRACK territory, but if it's staying, then so are the edits clarifying that O'Gorman was a child when Tatchell wrote his letter.
6) Some basic levels of competence are required. Please don't just randomly add duplicate text, random numbers of line breaks between sentences, bare URLs without reference tags, etc., and expect the rest of us to clean up after you. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paedophile Information Exchange section: sources[edit]

The majority of this section is referenced only by primary sources, and one of the secondary sources (the British National Party) is a far-right white supremacist organisation whose opinion on anything is clearly WP:UNDUE. This section needs a lot of improvement in its sourcing. TWM03 (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In his own words: https://gettr.com/post/p2l9dqk7d2b 2001:4DD5:700E:0:ADF0:2E5:69CB:8C44 (talk) 02:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Tommy Robinson isn't a great source either. TWM03 (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peter_Tatchell&oldid=1210634280"