Content deleted Content added
Line 254: ::::1st Exploding Boy. Can you honestly say objectivity on this topic has been your strong point? You don't seem to be really committed to NPOV in this article. I have made a point of trying to include information that calls the credibility of all parties into question, as no one in this whole affair really comes out of it smelling like a rose. One should not come across as partisan, that isn't the spirit of a good editor. We all ideally should try to argue both sides of an issue. If there is not sufficient representation of all perspectives here, Wikipedia loses credibility. ObiterDicta, thanks for coming back to address the issue. As to your comment that there is not mention of other people's orientation here, that there isn't, when it is probably relevant, may well be a failing. For example, sexually orientation may not be the most salient point in explaining Perez Hilton's actions, comments and motivations, but it has been argued that given his history, having him act as a judge was rather ill advised. I would say that theme needs to be developed. Does the Miss California pageant have a POV on the issue of gay marriage that is out of the mainstream of U.S. opinion? It certainly seems possible. Would a reasonable person suspect Mr. Lewis's orientation has something to with his hostile take on Prejean or the choice of Perez Hilton as a judge? I'd say let the reader decide. Politically correct reticence can be taken too far. This episode doesn't rise to the level of importance of other recent examples of blind adherence to PC extremes, but a bit more discussion of the agendas of Prejean's critics does seem warranted. Some more context as to the motives of two of Prejean's most damning critics in the article seems in order, and I don't believe in giving Donald Trump as pass either. I would argue an examination of Trump's character and his motives and behavior in this episode would severely damage his standing as a credible commentator as well. I'm working on cites for that. The mention of Lewis's orientation in the exact location that it was in may not be the best way to address the concerns I've raised above, but I would like to hear your thoughts on how to do so. Thanks and regards. [[User:Luitgard|Luitgard]] ([[User talk:Luitgard|talk]]) 13:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC) :::::Alright, so you didn't see where I was going with my comment above. You are asking whether Lewis's sexual orientation had anything to do with his reactions to Prejean. Yet you are not asking similar questions about Donald Trump. Or, perhaps to put it more broadly, the line of reasoning you are taking assumes that gays should be treated as having a potential bias on issues related to sexual orientation, but the heterosexual point of view should be assumed to be neutral. :::::Also, from your inital comment, I had assumed that inclusion of Lewis's sexual orientation had been discussed, and I was stepping on a consensus. However, I cannot find this discussion. Until a consensus emerges for inclusion, I think the mention of sexual orientation should be omitted. [[User:ObiterDicta|'''ObiterDicta''']] <small>( [[User talk:ObiterDicta|pleadings]] • [[Special:Contributions/ObiterDicta|errata]] • [[Special:Emailuser/ObiterDicta|appeals]] )</small> 15:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC) | |||