Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-22 Civil Partnerships in the United Kingdom

Request Information

Request made by: Csm1701 19:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the issue taking place?

... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_partnerships_in_the_United_Kingdom (also see Discussion)

Who's involved?

... csm 1701 (myself) and 82.70.132.246 (now changed name to Ros Power)

What's going on?

... 82.70.132.246 repeatedly edits article changing "Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom were made available to same-sex couples in December 2005..." to read "Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom were made available to any two people of the same sex in December 2005". The orginal author is correct, 82.70.132.246's assertion is misleading and actually contradicted in the text of the Act of Parliament. (I have quoted the relevant section from the Act below - it is linked to from the article.)

Any attempt to return to the accurate original wording is rv'd by 82.70.132.246, who then makes (unsigned) accusations in the Discussion section that it's some 'homosexualist' [sic] lobby running Wikipedia.

Frankly, 82.70.132.246's negative vioews of homosexuality views are his own affair, but I can see this turning into an edit war if he cannot be induced to accept the text of the Act as the basis for the intro.

Update: 82.70.132.246 (now named Ros Power) has RV'd again, despite my request that they await assistance from a Mediator. I will not perpetuate this constant RV-ing. And I do wish she wouldn't shout! (See Discussion section 'Protest'.) Oh well, at least we now get a sig.

FYI Section 3 of the Act reads:

Eligibility

 	    (1) Two people are not eligible to register as civil partners of each other if

 	
     (a) they are not of the same sex,
 	
     (b) either of them is already a civil partner or lawfully married,  	

     (c) either of them is under 16, or
 	
     (d) they are within prohibited degrees of relationship.

 	    (2) Part 1 of Schedule 1 contains provisions for determining when two people are within prohibited degrees of relationship.

What would you like to change about that?

... Have an intro to the article that represents what the =Act says rather than what 82.70.132.246 thinks it should say. I believe the original author was correct. Use signatures on talk page to facilitate communication between users and make discussion easier to follow.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

...

Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?

... Yes

Mediator response

I will happily take this case. Please see the discussion below. Thank you -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  ^talk 22:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Compromise offers

Civil Partnerships in the United Kingdom became available in December 2005, providing same-sex partners with legal recognition and rights and responsibilities virtually identical to civil marriage. Csm 1701 17:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others

Discussion

Ok, from what I have read I gather that it is the opening sentence, specifically Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom were made available to any two people of the same sex in December 2005 that uis causing controversy.

Csm1701, can you explain why this wording is in your opinion wrong and why. I know you may well have done this many times before but it helps to start off the discussion with everything set out properly.

As I read it though I think what you are saying is that civil partnerships are for couples of the same sex in the same way that marriage is for couples of different sexes but not for any two people of the same sex (not in a relationship - which you feel the article in it's current edit misinterprets). Am I right? Whilst Ros Power you are saying that the current edit is fine and that there is nothing in the bill about the couple required to be in a relationship. Again am I right?

Please can we keep the discussion firendly and magnanimous - please no homosexuality / racism comments as that detracts from the current issue. Thanks -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  ^talk 22:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, thank you for agreeing to mediate in this matter. Secondly, I apologise for not signing in - I am not using my own PC (darn thing has blown a fuse!) and I am not comfortable with using my password on third party devices. My IP should identify me, however.

Although I would not equate CPs with marriage (too much baggage comes with that term), your assessment of my view is spot on. Section 3 of the Act clearly states who can and cannot form a CP: the current version of the opening line is misleading in this regard.

While the Act (it is no longer a Bill) itself does not refer to same-sex 'couples', all official accompanying literature does so (indeed, the article is illustrated with an excelent example) The wording of the Act is unsurprising as 'couple' has no legal meaning in the sense suggested in the intro. NB, the article has been carefully worded so that the word 'couple' is not used in those sections dealing solely with the act itself.

Chris. CSM1701 83.217.190.69 23:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term "same sex couple" implies a kind of relationship between two people that must pre-exist before Civil Partnership is open to them - specifically an emotional/physical/sexual relationship, as it must with marriage if a marriage is to be valid and legal. This is simply, factually, not the case - the law specifies no kind of relationship between registrants, it merely specifies what kind of relationships they must NOT have.

To illustrate why this is inaccurate - consider the following scenarios. 1: A heterosexual man enters into a contractual agreement with a foreign national to become his civil partner so he can become a British Citizen. This is perfectly legal and happens all the time. Are they a "same sex couple"? No. 2: Two widows who are acquaintances and do not wish to remarry but wish the legal/financial benefits of CPs enter into a CP. Are they a "same sex couple"? No. As a point of fact, the relatively trivial take up of CPs by practising homosexuals may mean that in the years to come the MAJORITY of CPs will be between heterosexual people, and not "same sex couples".

The law simply makes NO reference to homosexuality or homosexual acts. You point out the DTI's literature which does imply a form of relationship, however, as the DTI will freely admit if you actually phone them up and ask them, as I have, the law does not specify any kind of relationship between registrants, and there are no barriers to two heterosexual people entering into them. The DTI is interpreting the law in its own curious way, as it will freely admit.

You may wish to cite the part of the law which states that lack of homosexual activity MAY be considered in any dissolution, but again, this depends on the nature of the CP, which may or may not be between practising homosexuals. This, as yet untested, clause would certainly not apply to any of the above, perfectly legal scenarios.

Without wishing to descend into a debate, you can surely see for yourself Chris, the practical and ethical impossibility of prescribing CPs to any particular form of relationship, an impossibility which the law has not yet manageed to overcome.

Ros Power 08:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning, Ros.

There is no requirement for a relationship to exist prior to civil marriage in order to make it legal. Please cite the relevant part of the Marriage Act if you believe otherwise. Marriages of convenience occur, hence the term. ...and why do you keep wanting to discuss marriage? Nobody else does.

Please do not make assumptions: I have not cited nor do I intend to cite any other part of the 'law' (by which you mean 'Act')

The practical and ethical considerations are not matters for WikiPedia to resolve. We are here to discuss the wording of one sentence, not reopen parliamentary debate.

Thomas needs to carry out his mediation work in his own way and I am not certain that he wants us to debate person-to-person at this time. On reflection, Other than refuting your claims and stating that they are POV (and speculative POV, too), I suggest we await Thomas's guidance. Chris 83.217.190.69 08:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, we are not discussing marriage. We are discussing Civil Partnerships. And the CP Act simply does not restrict CPs to "Same Sex Couples". However marriages of convenience, i.e, not conducted on bona fide grounds where no genuine relationship exists, are illegal BBC article. Whereas the law does not specify a relationship existing for CPs. What this demonstrates is that it would be true to say that marriage is only open to "opposite sex couples", because a lack of "coupledom" (for want of a better expression) makes the marriage invalid, whereas is would be inaccurate to say the same regarding "same sex couples" of CPs, because no stipulation exists.

:CP's a contract, pure and simple. If you wish, you can disprove my statements, by citing the parts of the act which prescribe a relationship and validate the expression "same sex couple".

Ros Power 09:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas - Hi! A possible rewording has just occured to me that might be an effective compromise.

I suggest: Civil Partnerships in the United Kingdom became available in December 2005 and, once a Partnership is formed, provide same-sex couples with legal recognition and rights and responsibilities virtually identical to civil marriage.

This wording removes Ros's apparent difficulty with the nature of the relationship (if any) before registration, and the two people involved (whether straight or not) are most certainly a couple of the same sex following the creation of their partnership. Just a suggestion. Regards. Chris 83.217.190.69 09:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, that would be factually inaccurate, and I suggest you know it. There are plenty of people, walking about today, in Civil Partnerships who would not consider themselves, or be considered, "a couple", and who would take great offence and exception to being described as such.

I am perfectly happy for you to continue the discussion in this way as long asyou try to intorduce new arguments (for want of a better word) or opinions in each posting rather than rehash old stuff (dont worry you are doing fine so far). Howeve I will chip in whenever I deem it appropriate.

Ros are you saying that there are no people in CP's that consider themselves 'couples'? If not I would urge you to reconsider Chris's compromise. It acknowledges that CP are available to anyone (per se) and introduces the (probably important) idea that the act is for the recognition of same-sex couples in the same way that marriage is for opposite sex couples. After all that was the main publicised reason for the act. Your opinions? -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  ^talk 10:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are people in CPs that consider themselves "couples". I didn't say that there weren't. But that is incidental to the act, and the original wording implied that it was an essential aspect of the law, if not a prerequisite. You also touch on an important distinction between marriage and CPs which further underlines my point. A CP is concluded with a signature on a document in front of a registrar. It is not a public declaration of anything (in fact legally a ceremony cannot take place). It says nothing about the nature of the relationship between the signatories, whereas a marriage IS a public declaration between a COUPLE. What this means is that marriage is a declaration of "coupledom" whereas CPs simply are not. They exist for whatever reason the signatories desire. That may or may not involve a homosexual component, but that is entirely irrelevant and superfluous. The law simply does not recognise homosexuality, homosexual acts as a right or a duty, or homosexual relationships.

I have no problem qualifying the statement with words along the lines of "...however, in practise, the majority of people entering into Civil Partnerships to date have been practising homosexuals". That, I think would clarify both the law and the de facto position to date.

Ok, comments chris? I think you need to be very careful actually using the word Homosexual in the article. Plus we need to also define what we refer to as marriage here. The actual registrar marriage or the ceremony (eg a church ceremony because they are different things).-- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  ^talk 10:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas,

Thank you for your input.

Ros has made claims she cannot back up with citations re the requirements for civil marriage. She has invented 'coupledom', a neologism with no legal standing. She mentions 'the law' and homosexual acts, neither of which have the slightest bearing on the matter in hand. Legally a ceremony *can* take place (I have been to one), it is not however a legal requirement.

The 'practising homosexuals' suggestion is dreadful: how do we know they are practising and they may well be bisexual. We have no idea whether the majority of CPs are between gay, straight or bi couples, all we know is that they are of the same gender. Ros has often attempted to alter articles replacing 'gay' with 'practising homosexual' and in all cases these attempts have been rv'd.

I fear we are wandering well away from the issue. We are not here to debate the parity (or otherwise) between CPs and marriage, and I suggest we do not get side-tracked.

I have already, in goodwill, suggested a compromise opening. I believe I have given cogent reasons why Ros's amendment is wholly inappropriate and why others would rv it almost at once.

From what I have seen so far, Ros has several reasons for disliking the phrase 'same-sex couples' but none that cannot be resolved by moving the expression to indicate that the couple is formed after rather than before the Partnership.

Just realised where we have been going wrong. It isn't 'marriage' that we need to define, it's 'couple'. That is the word Ros is objecting to. Any online dictionary indicates that the word covers both Ros's preferred meaning and a wide range of others. [[1]] Thomas, I really do not think that Ros can continue to insist on such a narrow definition of what is clearly a wide-ranging word. Indeed, now that I have bothered to check the meaning of the word, there can be no reasonable objection to its use as originally given in the article.

Are the intended Partners or the same sex? Yes. Are they covered by the definition of 'couple' as defined in dozens of online dictionaries? Yes. There seems therefore to be zero logic behind the idea of not calling then 'same-sex couples'.

Chris, you are suggesting that the word "couple" applies to an arbitrary grouping of any two people for any purpose and for any relationship. That simply isn't the case. Ros Power 11:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am suggesting just that. So does Websters dictionary, the OED and a host of others. 83.217.190.69 12:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, WikiPedia relies on consenus and I am still happy to propose the compromise already suggested. It seems reasonable. Ros apparently has no objection to my rewording, other that wanting to inject the 'practising homosexuals' bit. May I ask that you address the arguement for and against this additional phrase so that we can bring mediation to a close asap.

Regards, Chris 83.217.190.69 11:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Chris, I do have objections to your rewording, because is is simply not accurate. The term "same sex couple" is misleading, inaccurate and completely NPOV. The desire of people to rv the change is completely irrelevant (there are no shortage of people who want to "own" WikiPedia to reflect their worldview), the FACTS are that the term "same sex couple" does not exist in the word or the application of the law, and only exists in this article with heavy qualification and with the explicit caveat that CPs are not restricted to "same sex couples". Chris, seriously, are two widowers in a CP for inheritance tax or pensions or property reasons a "same sex couple"? No, they are not. Are the two men who formed a CP in Scotland for business puposes a "same sex couple"? No.

Yes, if two practising homosexuals wish to enter into a CP, that is their prerogative, assuming that they meet the qualifications, but it is incidental, their homosexual behaviour playing no part in that legal status. A CP does not "form a couple" as you seem to imply, because the word "couple" has sexual and emotional connotations which DO apply to marriage but DO NOT apply to CPs. Ergo, the term "same sex couple" is not just NPOV, it's simply factually wrong.

At the end of the day, you can go off and create a website which espouses that perspective, but if Wikipedia wishes to be a source with any authority it cannot allow itself to be hijacked like this.

Ros Power 11:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas,

I have attempted to act in goodwill and according to guidelines, but it is getting nowhere and is not being met with the same goodwill.

I have presented what I hope are well-reasoned and rational explanations for retaining the phrase 'same-sex couples' to describe couples of the same gender.

As a neutral third party, please advise me if you belive my view is in error. If so, I will cheerfully accept your opinion and withdraw.

Regards

Chris 83.217.190.69 12:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, you are right in identifying the root of our disagreement, namely the term "couple". I think that the standard usage of the term "couple" does imply a degree of intimate sexual and emotional relationship which is reflected in a public and private recognition of that relationship. That is why such a term simply does not factually apply to CPs. Business partners are not necessarily a couple, similarly, neither are civil partners. They MAY be, but not neccessarily.

Ros, thank you for your further input, but you are again offering POV ("I think that...") and then claiming that the same thought means that the word couple "does not factually apply." Because you or I think something, it does not automatically make it a fact: that what the whole NPOV thing is about.

I repeat that if a couple are of the same gender and are covered by the dictionary definition of the word 'couple' then it is nonsensical to object to the phrase 'same-sex couple'.

And probably the final word on this point should go to WikiPedia itself. Type 'couple' into WikiPedia's Search field and what go you see? :-

"The word couple may refer to: the publicly social bond between two people - see marriage, gay marriage, heterosexual, lesbian, homosexual"

Chris, that is something of a circular argument, but let's stand by your statement, which would seem to back up my position. There is NO REQUIREMENT of a PUBLIC SOCIAL BOND between TWO PEOPLE entering into a CIVIL PARTNERSHIP. Ros Power 12:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas, I refer back to my previous note. Please advise if you think my point has any merit. If not, I will withdraw. If you feel it reasonable, I will ask the Arbitration Committee to issue a binding decision.

Regards, Chris 83.217.190.69 12:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, when I said "I think that" I was being diplomatic. It is a FACT that the term "couple", when used in this context, be it in "same sex couple" or "opposite sex couple" does imply an physical/sexual relationship between them, and I challenge you in all honesty to dispute that. You cannot simply redefine the word "couple" to mean "any two people regardless of their relationship" and franky it is disingenuous to suggest that that's possible.Ros Power 13:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ros, please stop using capitals to make a point. It is viewed as shouting and is considered rude. Please also try to be less confrontational: 'I challenge you', calling me disingenuous, etc is neither necessary nor good etiquette.

I do dispute your conclusion. I am not redifining anything -I am using definitions in respected dictionaries and even WikiPedia's own definition.

I have also made it clear (twice) that I am willing to stand back and allow Thomas to determine whether my arguement has any value. I hope you are willing to do likewise. I would be grateful if you would therefore await his next suggestion rather than the pair of us waffling on unguided.

Thomas, I am concerned that while mediation is taking place, the article still claims that any two same sex people may form a CP. As we three are agreed (I believe) that I cannot marry my grandson, this really does need changing asap: even saying nothing would be better! I still feel my compromise wording is reasonable, and cannot think of anything better to suggest.

Regards, Chris. Csm 1701 13:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, I am happy to accept yours and WikiPedia's definition of couple. It does not, however, apply to Civil Partnerships. Ros Power 13:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ros, You accept the definition. You accept that these people are the same-sex. You even state that most people entering CPs are gay. And yet 'same-sex couple' doesn't apply to people entering a CP?

Can you explain your position in one succinct sentence, devoid of POV? Let's both do so, in fact.

"CPs are entered into by a couple, as defined by Wikipedia and accepted by you, of the same sex: hence same-sex couple."

Your go. Csm 1701 13:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"CPs may be entered into by any two people of the same sex. They may or may not be a couple." Ros Power 14:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woah hold on guys this is getting bogged down a little her. Unfortunately I am away from my main PC till around 6pm (UK time) Can I ask that you do not post any more comments until after then when I can mull over properly all of what you have said. I think there isn't going to be an outcome that both of you will be 100% happy with. I will take a look at all your points properly and come up with a bulleted pointed list of issues whichg we can then limit the discussion too. Also please avoid caps shouting and bold shouting if possible, italics is the best way to stress an important point.

I agree that the first sentence is probably best either removed or changed for the time being - Im thinking removing it would be the best option so I will also lok at that tonight. Thankyou for your patience. ).-- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  ^talk --129.11.76.215 13:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Hadn't noticed my bold shouting. Must have been iffy formatting when I cut and pasted: happens sometimes. Will correct at once. Csm 1701 14:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Compromise Offers. This removes the offending word, but carries the same sense. Ros cannot object to the use of the word 'partners' as she has used it in an edit herself. Csm 1701 17:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok here we go. As far as I can see these are the issues that you are not decided over.

• the use of the word couple when describing people entering into a CP
• the use of the word same-sex when referring to people entering into a CP - specifically couples
• whether people enterinf into a CP have to be a same-sex xouple, or wether it can be any 2 people of the same sex.

So basically as i see it the main sticking point is on the words same-sex and couple, is there anyway you could get a sentence that says what you both are (essentially) agreeing on but does not include the word couple or same-sex. (Chris has suggested 'partners')

Having read the act I agree there is no specific mention of persons entering into the being either a couple or in a relationship. However as Chris has said much of the literature about the act does sepcifically refer to same sex couples. This is a point that I think needs to be made in the sentence.

Rather than try to modify the sxisting sentence I think the best solution would be a total rewrite.

"Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom were made available to any two people of the same sex in December 2005 and grant rights and responsibilities virtually identical to marriage. There is a formal process for dissolving partnerships akin to divorce."

could become:

"In December 2005 Civil Partnerships were introduced in the UK. The act allows two people of the same sex to enter into a formal partnership that grants similar rights and responsibilties to that of marriages. Although the act does not stipulate that the 2 people must be in a relationship many of the current people entering into a CP were previously in a relationship."

Thats a very rough idea and open to (much) crticism and modification but I think that covers pretty much all of the points (feel free to disagree of course).

I have to say though that you should be very careful suggesting that people enter into CP's for other purposes (eg monetary or nationality gain) as that is illegal under UK law. Although there should be a nod towards 2 people of the same sex in a non-sexual relationship (eg: there used to be but not so much now a fad for elderly women, usually widows, to have a slightly younger companion)

Your thoughts? -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  ^talk 17:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evening, Thomas!

Thank you for your reply.

I am most grateful for your efforts at mediation, however I reluctantly withdraw from the process.

My reasoning is simple: reading through all of Ros's contributions to WP I note her repeated substitution of generally accepted terms for gay people/actvities with perjorative terms. [[2]]... and check out her new page about Nigel Wrench Utterly disgraceful and a misuse of WP if ever I saw one. (I have nominated the article for Speedy Deletetion of the grounds that it is bigotry designed to denegrate its subject.)

Her postings elsewhere are no better: [[3]]

Comment by Ros Power | 14 May 2006 at 8:33 am

People who choose to practise homosexuality wilfully put themselves beyond established moral codes and social norms. Furthermore, people who openly and unrepentantly do so publicly reject those moral codes, they defy them and in doing so express the view that those codes are worthless.

Whether or not those codes have any validity or not is somewhat irrelevant to the debate - they tell one a great deal about that kind of person. How can we trust someone who rejects something as basic as sexual morality to defend, say, the family, marriage, criminal laws, oppose the drug culture and defend the Judaeo-Christian basis of civic society and culture?

The answer is, we can’t, and it’s no great coincidence that practising homosexuals are at the forefront of the pro sexual-anarchy movement, a movement that has spread so much destruction and misery, mindless left-wing critical theorising and the wholesale demoralising and general intellectual vandalism of society.

Subsequently, it is not irrational to state that, in the interests of the common good and the future of society, people who openly, unrepentantly defy moral codes and practise homosexuality are unfit to represent people.

It is now apparent that her aim with the article under discussion is to once again substitute a harmless common usage term with one designed to belittle gay and lesbian folk.

Were I to accede to her wishes, I would be effectively collaborating in her attempt to redefine same-sex couples' as "any two unrelated people" and I have no intention of helping her perpetuate her bigotry.

I started this process in good faith however I cannot continue dialogue with a person who pedals such nausiating filth under the guise of creating NPOV articles. I will not rv the artcile, however you may wish to delete/alter the intro yourself as you previously suggested.

Again, my most sincere thanks and I trust you will understand my revulsion.

Kindest regards

Chris Csm 1701 22:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, pointing out what I have written elsewhere, as is my entitlement in a free society, is completely irrelevant to the debate and immaterial in assessing whether you or I are correct in the matter of the wording of the article. I have put forward copious evidence - you have not, and now you are resorting to dragging up statements elsewhere on the internet or WikiPedia. Ros Power 07:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just my 2 cents worth. It is your entitlement. It is also relevant as it shows potential motivation. And, in a free society, you should have no objection to your words being freely available to all. After all, if you are happy to post your thoughts elsewhere for others to read, why not stand up and be proud of them here. Can't say your ramblings paint a picture of a very happy woman, but that is something you have to live with I guess.

Oh I have no problem defending what I have written elsewhere, I am unashamedly and avowedly determined to expose the lies and deceit of what I consider to be a lobby that has caused and will continue to cause great harm to civil society in the pursuit of their goals, and, as ever, the first casualty is the truth. However, the comments of Csm1701 expose a great hypocrisy - a hypocrisy that is evident elsewhere on Wikipedia - viz. that it's OK for pro homosexual individuals, often practising homosexuals, to write, edit and censor, define the language for, and generally control articles on homosexuality and related matters, in spite of the pro-homosexual position being a very suspect and minority view, but not OK for people who oppose them to do the same. This is not a recipe for truth or accuracy. Ros Power 20:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But, has it ever crossed your mind that most people will just assume you're some sort of fruit cake, impotently wailing against something they despise? That's what your words read like: paranoid, angry ramblimgs. Sorry to be so blunt, but you did seem to want to hear unvarnished opinion. Like I said, just my 2c-worth. I apologise for continuing what seems to be a dead thread: looks like nobody is paying you attention any more, Ros. Don't think I will from hereon, either. G'day.

Well, if you want to write off most of the people in the world as fruitcakes, that's your decision. And if you want to ignore them, again, that's your decision. But the parts of the world that consider homosexuality to be normal and morally acceptable are dying, the one's that don't are burgeoning. You work out who's right and who's wrong, but soon, the question of who you pay attention to will be moot.Ros Power 14:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much as I try to ignore you, you really are one of the more amusing diversions on Wikipedia! For a woman who claims to seek truth and accuracy, you really are a dreadful fraud. What a load of mindless, unsubstantiated claptrap you do talk. The general feeling on WikiTalk would have one believe that you're ripe for banning. One chap, who claims to have met you back in 72, stated (and rememebr your passion for accurate reporting) that 'I think I know the old sow. Her cunt dried up years ago and now her brain is following likewise.' I disapprove of the crudity, but he may well have a point. Looking forward to your next outburst. I'm posting print outs of them of the office noticeboard under the heading 'A Mad Biddy Writes...' 83.217.190.69 17:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMPORTANT: This discussion can now be considered over. I am considering referring this to the arbitration comitee however in the mean time please refrain from posting deflamatory or rude comments aboutr other users. The purpose of this discussion was to resolve a dispute between 2 users without causing huge amounts of posting and / or fuss. Unfortunately one of the users pulled out of the process for understandable reasons and so this page has no further use. I will be considering sending the following to either an admin or to arbitration. The discussion about this article, with the request that the first sentence (which has now been changed to remove all referneces that both parties disagreed with) needs to stop being edited - possibly with the request to protect the page. - At the very least to give a definitive and bindign decision. The conduct of user Ros Power, including contributions to the subject article and other articles as well as commens on talk pages Any other comments that by users thart I feel need pointing out to an admin (and / or the arbitration commitee) for acting on by his / her discression If you wish to discuss these points please get in touch with me on my talk page. I am genuinely sorry this process failed to see a satisfactory or friendly outcome and hope that none of the contributors will go away feeling bad about each other. These arte important points we are discussing but not the end of the world. Thanks for your time and contributions -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  talk 01:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for pointing that out. obviously will allow Ros Powers to respond but as Chris has pulled out I think we can consider this discussion over. I think the best prcatice would be to revert the sentence to the original. -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  ^talk 22:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your suggestion re reinstating the article's original line and invite you to restore it. You will be pleased to know that bigotry seems to have no welcome on Wikipedia: her revolting article on Nigel Wrench was deleted. (Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion) Comforting that the Administrators show no acceptance of such bigotry. Csm 1701 07:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]