Talk:Kyle Rae
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group. | ||
 |
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale. |
Contents |
[edit] POV
Perhaps too neutral POV? Kyle Rae has been a controversial and divisive figure. He stands out from much of the rest of the pack both in his better qualities and his flaws.
I agree. This gives almost no flavour of who he is or the strong reactions he generates.
It's a real scream how Wikipedia says its an open source encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but there still exists an official version that is reverted to when anyone tries to make a listing more comprehensive, up-to-date or even interesting. Digital Maoism, indeed!
Why bother fucking having editing or talk pages? Just put out your "official" version and be done with it! Stop this pretense that "anyone" can edit it, because that is an elaborate fictional hoax.
If the page is going to describe him as elected as a "left-leaning" councillor, then there ought to be reference to the fact that one of the major changes of his term in office is that he is no longer that, in fact, his support is mostly drawn from developers and the rich.
What in heck is going on here? I thought there was supposed to be discussion before reverts take place? That blows. (unsigned comment)
- If you provide a reference for your edit, then it won't be deleted as "unsubstantiated hearsay". If you don't, it just sounds like your posting your own opinion. Please see WP:CITE and WP:NPOV. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 10:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Well perhaps you could indicate the reference for the "unsubstantiated hearsay" already in the text. Why am I being held to a different standard. Rae is referred to as a prominent gay rights activist, but he has never headed a major gay rights organization. I would ask that you differentiate between activist and mouthpiece. Giving the same credibility to camera-fuckers as to people who actually do activist work is offensive in the extreme. His work at the 519, which is not a "gay space" was in running a city-owned community centre. It provided him spatial equivalence and proximity to the Church Street gay area; that is what his prominence is based on. Dr Gary Kinsman, sociology and gay historian at Lakehead and who was involved in the early gay rights movement in Toronto at the same time that Rae "invented" pride, has written about Rae's claim to have invented the gay movement in Toronto. Essentially, it is a fiction - he has simply scooped up the credit to further his political career. There is often a disconnect between a politician's invented and constructed resume and the reality. If Wikipedia exists to prop up existing political ideologies and spurious claims to history and power, then it doesn't have much purpose that interests me, and I'll keep editing as I see fit. http://tao.ca/~limpfist/campaigns.html
[edit] Text needs a reference
Doesn't this have NPOV problems? It makes Rae seem like a champion of this, that and the other - without giving any time to a wide-ranging and sustained critique of his time in office, both within and outside of the "gay community". For every "renewed calls for protecting heritage buildings" there are entire classes of people or problems he has written off and ignored. His entry into an contentious issue is predicated on his assumption that he can come out of it smelling like roses. To not acknowledge the breadth of criticism about this politician is to not really talk about him at all. Would you write about Clinton and leave out Lewinsky? Come on - let's get beyond the stubbiness. No-one seems to like my changes, they get deleted within minutes. So, then lets have someone who is a better researcher writer give this a thorough going over and cease this small time hagiographic approach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.66.64 (talk) 05:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Does it? Really? According to exactly what set of arbitrary rules? Yours? I don't see much referencing in much of the rest of the article, for other claims made. Many, many google articles, works in progress, have claims and statements not reference. Usually, the article is introduced "this article does not cite its references". Then there's a project for someone to come along and improve it. But REMOVE IT, because you think it needs a reference? Who the hell appointed you queen for life?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.12.65.216 23:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- You are correct that some statements in this article are unreferenced so I found some and added them. I inivte you to do the same. Given the fact that this page has been repeatedly vandalized I think that any material added here should be referenced. Until that stops, information added here should be viewed with a more rigorous standard. Atrian 04:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Unreferenced statements
Place this here until I can find a good reference. Atrian 04:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
On city council, he has continued his campaign for gay rights. He also played a prominent role in the controversial campaign to introduce affirmative action in the city's fire department.
Another unsourced statement: Atrian (talk) 01:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- I did a Google search for this using "Kyle Rae" "Mark Reid" and separated|separation. There were no hits. Atrian (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The couple (Rae and Reid) have recently separated as of September 2007.
[edit] Disputed differences with Ontario NDP
because of Premier Bob Rae's (no relation) inaction on gay rights issues.
This needs a reference and saying that the Rae government didn't act on gay rights is untrue - the Legislature overturned government legislation that would have given same-sex survivors the same rights as others. Rae simply let his membership lapse. This is a contentious period and needs to be referenced thoroughly. His own actions are not beyond scrutiny. [Text moved from article to talk page], unsigned edit by User:74.14.41.135, 21 May 2007.
- OK, so you may have a point. However such comments should be made on the talk page, not on the article itself. I reformatted the paragraph to remove the reference until it can be referenced properly. Atrian 17:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable. Thank you for your clean-up.
DIFFERENCES OF OPINION ON GAY RIGHTS is not correct. He left over the inability of the government to pass its own same-sex benefits legislation. Rae supported the government bill, but he left in disgust at the government's ineffectiveness and allowing a free vote. This makes it sound as if he and the government were on different sides of the issue. They were not. His entirely justifiable anger was about the government's ineffectiveness in passing its own legislation that simply instituted what had been party policy for something like twenty years. This is minute and nuanced stuff, but it needs to be done right. Those of us who were there need to be brought in, and won't suffer through revisions of our collective histories just so it doesnt offend the Wikipedia "machine".
[edit] New text
Rae has been a lomg-time advocate for gentrification of the Gay Village.[1] As far back as 2000, he opposed a liquor licenses for entertainment establishments in the Gay Village.[2] He has been criticized for siding with wealthy land developers and establishment gays over the interests of younger, poorer, marginal gays.[3]
- I would like to dispute this newly added text. The references used do not support the text. For example, the first references refers to a development that is outside the "Gay Village". Regarding the liquor licence referred to in reference 2, Rae supports the application - he doesn't oppose it. The 3rd reference does not support that last claim. Rae's only remark is that he complains about street kids and the hustlers and the drug dealers. There's nothing in this article to support the claim that Rae is siding with older gays at the expense of younger members of the gay community. Atrian 22:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
He is doing exactly that. Those of us who lives in/near the village live with it, and some fuck in California or Toledo OH wouldn't fucking know.
[edit] References
- ^ thestarmar28, [http://www.thestar.com/article/196745 "Condo would be country's tallest: Councillor lauds 80-storey proposal for Yonge, Bloor"], March 28, 2007.
- ^ Xtra2000, "Balancing fun & quiet: Pub’s opponents worry about children & the ’hood", July 13 2000.
- ^ thestar2006, "Goodbye Gaytown? Church Street's gay village, the centre of gay culture in Toronto, is under siege", May 13, 2006.
Ye
[edit] WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 06:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wow.
Wow, the fascists at Wikipedia really come crawling out of the slimepit whenever non-institutionalized, non-conformist views are put up here. What a bunch of fuckwads you all are.
- Wikipedia is all about conformity. Maybe you should be updating Nonconformipedia instead. Atrian (talk) 16:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is all about conformity"? There it is...from the horse's mouth. What ever happened to "be bold" of the early days? Jaron Lanier is right on then, apparently, with the charge of digital maoism. Indeed it is, indeed it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.48.189 (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Citations
How does one cite something which is 'common knowledge' but not written up? Not all information finds its way into print. There is a difference between rumour-mongering and representing a fact that cannot be 'cited' but is nonetheless true. Please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.72.111 (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a primary source of information (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). It relies on other sources as a basis for its articles. If something is added that can not be independently verified from another source it is called original research. This is against Wikipedia guidelines. I suggest you familiarize yourself with these guidelines before making further unverifiable claims. Atrian (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey welcome to Wikipedia. Don't be put off. They're not all as snotty as this guy. When they say 'be bold' they don't mean it. Apparently, Wikipedia could also be known as 'Derivatives 'R Us'!
Maybe, Atrian, you could explain how you've come to the position of enforcing 'guidelines' as if law. Do guidelines compel one to do something, as in law, or are they a 'guide' as the root word suggests? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.71.65 (talk) 04:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, "No original research" is not a guideline, but an official policy on Wikipedia, so it is not a guide, it is a law. I didn't make the law, and Atrian didn't make the law, but any Wikipedian is empowered to enforce it since Wikipedia is volunteer-driven. People who don't like Wikipedia's policies are welcome to try to change them through the discussion pages, e.g., Wikipedia talk:No original research, or to contribute to other projects such as Uncyclopedia, which does not have the same rules as Wikipedia. Ground Zero | t 04:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
