Talk:Campaign for Homosexual Equality

start talk
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)

National Friend
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.

Recent edits.
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.


 * This is an encyclopedia, it doesn't matter what you think about CHE, it existed and still exists, and where possible this article reflects what is known about it from WP:RS. Contrary to your assertions, there is no evidence it no longer functions, and I'm not clear how you would know how many members it has - as membership lists would be data protected.  It has more than 2-3 men as executive members alone, so clearly you are wrong there.  CHE is significant historically, and maybe people under 30 don't know who they are, there are a lot of people over 30 who do - I guess it depends who and where you ask the question. Mish (talk) 10:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * CHE charge a memership fee of £25 per year, it is not therefore a free organisation, detail from its website, the organisation does not have any democratic mandate to represent the wider gay community outside its own membership.


 * The article does not state that it has a democratic mandate to speak for the gay and lesbian community (and what activist organisation has any mandate to represent anybody apart from its members?). This is not the place to grind axes against an organisation.  Stating this would be WP:OR based on WP:SYNTH.  Do you have a WP:RS that states what you want to say? Mish (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You have stated the point I added to the article, this was reverted, that CHE represents its membership, a point that should be in the article, I have seen other groups like Stonewall directly consult with the wider gay community to support its campaigns, not CHE who's main core act unilaterally. As for axes to grind why would there be? It is a huge insult and large assumption there. Wikipedia is supposed to be factual not a promoter of assumptions. CHE are a members organisation and represent its own membership. What is the big issue in adding this back to the article along with the citations to show that as a fact? The issue to me in not adding it is that the article is without this giving the impression that this group does represent a wider range of gay men than it does. The bias is in allowing that assumption.


 * Please listen to what I say. The problem is that you do not have a WP:RS for this, it is your opinion.  It may be true, but the thing is, without a source that states this, it is WP:OR based an WP:SYNTH.  You did not provide a citation to show this, what there is citation for is still there (I don't know specifically why the other editor removed the text about the achievements of Outrage! and Stonewall, but I would support those on the basis that they are off-topic, as this is about CHE, not other organisations and how well they have done since CHE's hay-day. Mish (talk) 23:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * MishMich I do not think you objective or editing in the spitit of wikipedia in this article, the article is about a members organisation that serves England and Wales, the article itself states the Scottish have their own organisation, the group is based in North West England. The openning statement will be entirely wrong if it states it is a UK organisation. Please leave the wikipedia entry to state the fact as detailed in the groups constitution. It is based in the North West of England. If you consider not mentioning that this is a members organisation until later in the write up then you should have changed the position of the wording not deleted the statement, it was added with two citations to the facts.  I really cannot see why you keep editing out anything in this that mentions is is a members organisation, the groups constituion makes it clear.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.200.45 (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Apart from the grammar, in talking about history it is misleading to project back in time what the literature says about today - so I have broken this up into two sentences. I reverted the lot because as a whole it was inaccurate - and really, if you want to make these insertions, you should do the work of correcting them, not me.  It was one of the earliest in the UK, and it still is one of the oldest in the UK, and it always will be one of the oldest in the UK.  That is history.  What it is now is irrelevant - Scotland was part of the UK, and still is, as is Northern Ireland, England and Wales, even if they weren't, and just because it only covers England and Wales, that does not mean it was not one of the earliest in the UK.  So, it is based in the North West?  That just means it is based in the North West, if it covers England and Wales, it covers England and Wales as well as the North West - not just the North West.  If the sources change this to state it only covers the North West, then it covers the North West, but until then it covers England and Wales, regardless of where it is based.  Not all such national organisations are based in London - some are based in Manchester, some in Brighton.  You need to WP:AGF, and calling that into question is WP:UNCIVIL, and I could make similar comments about your edits appearing based on a hostility towards the subject of this article - we do not do that, we are guided by WP:NPOV, which is what I am trying to ensure happens here.  I have no brief for this organisation, am far more sympathetic to GLF and Outrage! TBH, but this was a scrappy article full of individuals' insertions, some based on recollection and some POV, and where I could I found sources and cleaned it up into a readable article.  I'm not interested in whether they are good or bad, but that they are notable, and played a significant role in the history of homosexual emancipation in this country - possibly yielding benefits precisely because they were a 'safer' alternative to the antics of GLF.  I respect both.  It is a pity people who have no idea what things were like before 1970 cannot do the same.  These people changed the lived reality of every L&G person alive today - Stonewall and Outrage! continue that work - but without organisations like these, they would not have inherited a world where people can even think of equal opportunities or civil partnerships for LGBT people. Mish (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * MishMich On the first point the entry was a quote from the CHE constitution, the link to the citation also made that clear. On adding information to the article it is reasonable to expect someone to come along and improve it, rather than remove all edits. Collective writing is after all that’s what Wikipedia is about. You seem reluctant to see additions or changes by reverting edits even with citations. I think it is a broad statement to say oldest in UK with no citation. When something is one of the oldest the statement is so broad it could include some more recent groups, how old is old? However your edit to assert that remains. I do have to challenge you on the assertion that this is an historical article. As pointed out the CHE is a current active organisation, therefore the article should reflect that in its opening, its history should come later. My edits have been objective, stating the facts including the recent update on Liberty disassociating itself from CHE.  On adding that it was not a hostile move or POV it was a fact. I had not add to the article or state the CHE are campaigning outside its own aims as this is POV and would need consensus to be added to the article. The citations are certainly available.  That the disassociation is nothing to do with gay rights, but that statement would be a POV, so its never been there. All groups including CHE are created based on a legal constitution, in the document the definition of its geographic coverage and its aims are made clear and fixed in a legal framework.  The constitution is the source of the facts used in my edits. I do believe the article would be improved by adding the organisations stated aims, but fear as soon as I add them you will come along to edit them out again. It is for that reason I asked you to make the edit, you have reverted edits when made otherwise. May I add the aims of the group from its constitution and see the edit remain?  The flow of the main article I also feel is wrong, its not in the flow of the Five Ws.  To achieve that it needs to be reworked. To be clear, I have no reason to be against this or any other article about Gay and Lesbian rights. In fact I share your thoughts on promoting the knowledge of history of homosexual emancipation, but feel a Wikipedia article needs to be accurate. You have made some assumptions about my age, we do not know each other.  I can comment to on the 70's you know, whether or not I was alive then.  Wikipedia is not about writing new works. I could write about the Victorians but I do not have to lived in that period.  You were wrong to reference WP:AGF, and WP:UNCIVIL, and WP:NPOV I feel you should read them and reflect on why you referenced them wrongly toward another Wikipedia user. I hope the next post from you will be constructive as to how to improve the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.217.155 (talk) 14:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Legal status of CHE / aims and objetives missing.
The Campaign for Homosexual Equality, CHE for short, are a voluntary members organisation 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]

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.

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.

Re-structuring
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)

Reverting sourced statement
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)


 * You might want to read WP:WEIGHT Snowded  TALK 04:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I support Snowded's removal of Zezen's additions. The PIE issue has been blown up by some of the press but is of extremely marginal relevance to the history of CHE, whose position on the age of consent was always crystal clear, viz. as long as the heterosexual age of consent was 16, so should be the homosexual age of consent. CHE occasionally expressed support for PIE's right to freedom of speech but never for its policies. -- Alarics (talk) 21:33, 15 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)


 * Clearly from that Guardian article the 1975 CHE conference was divided, but the resolution quoted is criticising the conference committee over how much time should have been devoted to discussion of the issue, not supporting PIE's policies themselves. CHE policy (which was certainly NOT drafted by Keith Hose) was consistently for a homosexual age of consent of 16 so as to be EQUAL with heterosexuals (there is a clue in the organisation's name). PIE wanted a much lower age, or even no age of consent at all. It is therefore absolutely wrong to say that "CHE backed PIE". -- Alarics (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that the way in which has added these facts does give undue weight to PIE, and some of the sources mentioned only mention the PIE–CHE link in passing. However, CHE's stance on paedophilia and child sexual abuse does seem notable enough to be included in the article, IMO, considering the sources given in Zezen's edit. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 19:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I disagree that it is worth mentioning. CHE was supporting PIE's freedom of speech, not its views. It is not a significant aspect of CHE's history. -- Alarics (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I appreciate all of your responses. Indeed, I may be wrong that PIE members was influential in drafting CHE resolutions in the long run: yet it happened at least once. Once again, despite what you, Alarics, claim, CHE for years campaigned for age of consent as low as 12, "in cases where a defendant could prove the existence of meaningful consent.", see http://buddybuddy.com/consent.html#chart and Age of consent reform for more sources. Zezen (talk) 19:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * No, the resolution drafted by Keith Hose at the 1975 conference was, as the Guardian article makes clear, merely about the conference committee's decision as to how much time the conference should spend discussing PIE. It was nothing to do with CHE's policy. As for buddybuddy.com, it cites no source for its claim. I don't think the Draft Bill on which CHE was campaigning for law reform included the provision mentioned, and we would need to see proof that that was official CHE policy, which I doubt. It is most certainly not the case that "CHE for years campaigned for age of consent as low as 12". -- Alarics (talk) 19:37, 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)
 * Agreed completely. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 13:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Except that CHE didn't have a "stance on PIE" except to uphold its right freedom of speech. It had a stance on the age of consent, which was that it should be 16. -- Alarics (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but the PIE attempted to steer the group towards pro-paedophile activism. Seems relevant to include it here, albeit very briefly. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 15:58, 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)


 * There is a consensus (which I agree with) to mention it briefly or "very briefly".  There is no agreement (the opposite in fact) to a whole section which appears to try and make a 'point'.  One of the editors you count as support says very specifically "the way in which Zezen has added these facts does give undue weight to PIE".  So you were not correct to restore your edit intact so I have reverted them.   I have crafted a brief section on 'controversies' when mentions the material but does not take one stance to in effect pillory CHE which is what you were doing.  Partial statements may well have sourced, but our goal here is be balanced and show due weight.   By the way three for and two against is not a consensus either, its a very small majority and wikipedia is not a democracy so it doesn't work on voting.  You also need to stop making silly accusations against other editors who disagree with you  Snowded  TALK 06:08, 21 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)

RfC: Should the Controversies section mention more cases of CHE's support for PIE or only few?
(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)


 * REJECT The issue is already covered and properly referenced.  Adding more and more material would make this an article about CHE and PIE not about CEH.  Also some of the variants in edits made seem be be biased in removing the free speech and other reasons and instead taking a tabloid stance.  Snowded  TALK 23:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * REJECT For the reasons given by Snowded. -- Alarics (talk) 11:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * REJECT unless serious notability to these viewpoints can be proven. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 17:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Closure
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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Campaign for Homosexual Equality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110616060553/http://www.petertatchell.net/outrage/outrageindex.htm to http://www.petertatchell.net/outrage/outrageindex.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://spotlightonabuse.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/g26875.jpg
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://spotlightonabuse.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/paedotalks.jpg
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://spotlightonabuse.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/g240977.jpg

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://spotlightonabuse.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/g26875.jpg
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://spotlightonabuse.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/paedotalks.jpg
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://spotlightonabuse.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/g240977.jpg
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070618035533/http://www.lse.ac.uk:80/library/archive/Default.htm to http://www.lse.ac.uk/library/archive/Default.htm

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) 17:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100708231148/http://www.londonfriend.org.uk/history/ to http://www.londonfriend.org.uk/history/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lse.ac.uk/library/archive/Default.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://spotlightonabuse.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/g26875.jpg
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://spotlightonabuse.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/paedotalks.jpg
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://spotlightonabuse.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/g240977.jpg
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080611051323/http://www.manchester.gov.uk/site/scripts/documents_info.php?documentID=398 to http://www.manchester.gov.uk/site/scripts/documents_info.php?documentID=398
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509155319/http://www.gaymonitor.co.uk/chehistory1.htm to http://www.gaymonitor.co.uk/chehistory1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Unreliable Sources
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)