This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
This article is of interest to 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, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
I note that much of the history section is woefully unreferenced and has an unencyclopaedic tone. I wasn't sure if it is intended to be promotional but the combination of the tone and the distinct lack of sources lead to the suspicion that it was written from somebody's personal recollection. Then I looked at the history and... It looks like the editor himself was editing the article back in 2019! This is not good. I'll give it a trim back. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. It is an improvement but the lack of sourcing is still awful. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Edits soft-pedalling the mentions of the LGB Alliance[edit]
I have twice reverted this change. No convincing rationale has been offered for the change in edit summaries and it does not seem to be an improvement. In my view it makes the article more vague and less informative and serves only to spare the blushes of those who might find this perfectly valid content embarrassing. In particular, it is completely unacceptable to fiddle with the title of the referenced article. The source is called "Boyz editor issues grovelling apology after promoting anti-trans LGB Alliance: ‘We got it wrong. Please forgive us’". Removing "anti-trans" from the title of the reference, without any indication that words have been selectively omitted, is effectively falsifying a quotation. It is not for us to alter other people's words. It is not for us to spare anybody embarrassment so long as what we are saying is correct and appropriate coverage. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
