Talk:Gene Raymond

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gene Raymond. 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/20121017051251/http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=1658 to http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=1658

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) 11:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Tim1965 is trying to add a fringe source.
I removed the allegations of LGBTQ status that originate from the University of Mississippi Press, which is a fringe source. An editor known as "Tim1965" has repeatedly added text with these allegations. Should this page become protected? Is anyone other than Tim1965 reading this? Tim1965 should read WP:SYNTH, and WP:DUE. Unless Tim1965 has found significant coverage of LGBTQ status in reliable secondary sources about Gene Raymond, this is not going to pass muster. Also do not make changes to comments made by other editors. That is extremely rude.Brent Brant (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * University of Mississippi Press is hardly a fringe source. It's a mainstream academic press. My edits are not WP:SYNTH, as I am not synthesizing sources and drawing a conclusion, not putting two sources side-by-side in order to get the reader to draw a conclusion the sources do not reach. The sources clearly say what the edits say. My edits are not WP:UNDUE, either. A minor factoid discussed extensively is UNDUE. A minor factoid inserted as if it were major is UNDUE. A husband's homosexual affair, conducted on his honeymoon, is hardly UNDUE, especially when that marriage itself is mentioned by other editors. By all means, let's get put this up to arbitration. Clearly consensus isn't being built here by repeatedly reverting cited, published, neutral text. - Tim1965 (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)