Talk:Austin Ruse

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Austin Ruse. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160513223139/https://esango.un.org/civilsociety/consultativeStatusSummary.do?profileCode=622217 to https://esango.un.org/civilsociety/consultativeStatusSummary.do?profileCode=622217

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Far right
Breitbart is a far-right news organsitaion with which Ruse has been closely associated. Problem?


 * The problem is real as Ruse is not Breitbart and the claim about adherence to a far-right movement has to meet the standards of WP:Living people. A reference has not been quoted. I recommend reading the editing help before spicing the article. –Joppa Chong (talk) 02:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I've provided another source in addition. He worked regularly for Breitbart - this suggests a close relationship to its ideology. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Addition to what? To nothing. We are not here to speculate. The database link says no immediate word about a former Breitbart connection and lets the reader alone with searching the right article if it exists at all. A proponent of the Christian Religious Right cannot necessarily be deemed as far-right, so I ask for proper citation. –Joppa Chong (talk) 02:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added a clear Breitbart link. He has been a very frequent contributor - we're not talking one-off. The line between the far right and the Christian religious right is also quite blurred.Contaldo80 (talk) 09:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * A blurred line is hard to define. Hence, we could refer to the Christian right instead, okay? −Joppa Chong (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Many members of the Christian religious right are members of the far-right. That is what I meant. Thus Ruse can be both.Contaldo80 (talk) 13:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * We need to describe Ruse as he is/was, not how he might be, or have been. Don't spam the article with a personal speculation presented as a quoted fact. –Joppa Chong (talk) 03:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You're making no sense. Might be? Was? Is? Can you go and seek a third party view if you continue to have a problem with this please. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * My post was quite obvious. You continued reverting and added the edit summary: "(I'm not looking to achieve consent)". Your request indicates you should read WP:Gaming the system. –Joppa Chong (talk) 01:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you stop messing about. Put up a proper argument or leave the text in. Ruse was a regular contributor to breitbart a far right organisation. If you find a source to say he isn't linked to Breitbart or the far right then produce it. Don't accuse me of "gaming" any system/ Contaldo80 (talk) 14:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, you confirm my complaint. Ignoring the critique I added to this discussion shows you are not seeking a serious dispute resolution. Who believes that everyone who worked for Breitbart in the past is far-right? One should also know that far-right is not a movement. –Joppa Chong (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Joppa Chong you are editing warring. Stating that Breitbart is a far right media source is not "offensive". It is fact. Can you state your concerns clearly here before reverting again and we can see whether we can reach a compromise. If you insist on pushing a POV then I will have no choice but to refer you to administrators. You are showing no willingness to engage through dialogue. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The recent edit you repeatedly insisted on creates the impression for the reader that the citation backs a statement about Ruse but he is not mentioned in the Times of Israel article. Remember the pseudo quote for the fabricated stuff about connections to Salvini and the League you helped to spread. So please take more care. We should consider posting the Times of Israel quote where it fits better (→Breitbart). –Joppa Chong (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I really don't know what you're up to. Ruse worked regularly for Breitbart which is commonly understood as a far right media source. Trying to cover this all up just looks a little bit weird. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The article links properly to further info on Breitbart and I have made a suggestion in order to consider a transfer of the Times of Israel quote appropriately. Moreover, it would get more attention this way. Covering things up is something else. Your recent edits are consumed with personal opposition to Ruse. By the way, don't confuse what is essential about depicting Bannon, Breitbart and Ruse. –Joppa Chong (talk) 06:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Your recent edits are consumed with personal opposition to Ruse". You think? Because I think your recent edits are consumed with personal promotion of Ruse. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Promotion to what? I just engaged for owr principles like WP:NPOV and now brought the Times of Israel link to its right place. –Joppa Chong (talk) 03:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * None of my edits violated NPOV so I would disagree. Two editors now agree that "far-right" should be added as pre-fix to Breitbart. Contaldo80 (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not notable if you agree with yourself and we aren't here to discuss how right Breitbart might be. Just keep misleading quotes out of the article. In this respect, your editing behaviour follows a pattern of adding material to let Ruse appear in a bad light. −Joppa Chong (talk) 03:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "...follows a pattern of adding material to let Ruse appear in a bad light". What?! Who cares if Ruse appears in a bad or good light? I don't care? Are you saying that you only want material that makes Ruse appear in a good light? This is worrying. You're also starting to edit war now. I added material that was sourced - either argue the case why it should be removed or take to dispute resolution. You have not bothered to debate the issues properly. You're talking about lack of notability but also misleading quotes. Be specific please. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it is all quite obvious, however not hopeless. –Joppa Chong (talk) 04:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Obvious to you perhaps. But regrettably not to me. Very happy to engage politely and constructively but based on reasoned discussion. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You received a reply to the talking points you brought up, so it makes no sense to pretend confusion. Face it: The article becomes increasingly unbalanced. –Joppa Chong (talk) 06:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Unbalanced? It what sense is it unbalanced? Contaldo80 (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I tried to balance the focuses a bit but imho the article still gives undue weight to random remarks, especially verbal quotes on the LGBT matters. –Joppa Chong (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * To be honest I think that's all this man is know for isn't it? He's fairly unremarkable otherwise. I certainly hadn't heard of him before media started reporting on all his anti-LGBT rhetoric. If you think there is material on other stuff he does then put it in - but you can't blame imbalance if there is noting otherwise to say that's notable.Contaldo80 (talk) 04:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So you didn't come from reading his books or the book reviews? I added a little more about what he might be known for. –Joppa Chong (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Does he write books? Who knew. I wouldn't find myself knowingly reading one. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Feel free to read the article... –Joppa Chong (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I suspect that even in this state the article is more coherent than one of his books. Contaldo80 (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Breitbart
Austin Ruse is a long-time contributer to Breitbart. Is it significant? No less significant surely than most of the facts included in this article. Why set a higher bar for this particular issue. And is it that unreasonable to use Breitbart as a source to show who its columnists actually are? Contaldo80 (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Homosexuality
Joppa Chong I have given you a chance to discuss on talk and find a sensible way forward but the justification for your last edit is frankly a little bizarre "...as it is true that Ruse is quite familiar with the homosexuality topic in general and not just with gays". Is not being gay and homosexual the same thing? How do you know - with confidence - that Ruse is familiar with the topic of homosexuality? Does he have some sort of academic qualification in human sexuality? How does the word "Homosexuality" describe accurately to the reader what follows in the section it heads? Please stop stubbornly reverting and set out your views as to why the current heading is inaccurate. Contaldo80 (talk) 05:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * We talk about a sub-section of the chapter "Views and controversies", hence "Homosexuality" would mean a portion of those views or controversies related to homosexuality. This would reflect the content of the sub-section which is mainly unisex, not restricted to gays. Remember User:Orvis2003 had initiated the revert of "Anti-gay views" perceiving this wording as pejorative. I think we should keep the article encyclopedical in style, and we all know there is a reason why nobody says GBT movement. If moral and geopolitical debates around this arena is not Ruse's cup of tea, why did you focus the article on that matter? –Joppa Chong (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The controversy is surely his strident anti-gay views? It's not controversial that he simply writes or talks on the issue of homosexuality. He is specifically against giving civil rights to people who are gay and takes a conservative approach in terms of their inclusion within the Catholic church. With regards to Orvis2003 it is their view that the term is "perjorative" they have not provided further justification for this. Why is it perjorative? If Ruse doesn't like gay people then fair enough - let's just reflect that fact and respect his outlook. I can't see the value in hiding things away so that it looks like he isn't stridently against gay rights but everything he says and does reflects the fact that he is. "If moral and geopolitical debates around this arena is not Ruse's cup of tea, why did you focus the article on that matter?" I don't understand this point? Sure he talks a lot about the issue - does that make him familiar with the topic and nuances of the issues? He doesn't seem to show that. Contaldo80 (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As his NGO deals with details, Ruse has gained some knowlegde in the gay rights controversies, no matter if he supports or opposes equal rights. Anti-gay does just affirm the jargon of The Advocate magazine as cited. –Joppa Chong (talk) 00:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

If Ruse's anti-gay, anti-LGBT agenda and support for the criminalization of homosexuality weren't notable, he wouldn't even have an article on Wikipedia. I added a bit to the lead. JimKaatFan (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)