Talk:American Family Association/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 01 – 02 – 03 – 04 – 05

1 Incorrect statement listed in Controversial remarks
2 Jewish upbringing = Crime
3 American Family Foundation
4 Controversial statements
5 Hate Group?
6 Categories
7 Talk:Christmas controversies/Merge proposal
8 Controversy section
9 Miscellaneous Changes
10 Disputed Text
11 Controversy
12 Systemic bias
- 12.1 Categories are biased and wrong
  - 12.1.1 Censorship is not true
  - 12.1.2 Discrimination is POV
- 12.2 Anti Gay
- 12.3 Homophobia category
13 "Activism" Rewrite and "Controversy" Name change
14 Possible Compromise on Category Debate
15 Block recommendation
16 Temporary Halt to Discussion
17 The references section needs fixing
18 Removed link
19 Wojnarowicz v. American Family Association
20 "Goals" Section
21 Category Dispute Tag
22 Vandalism by Christopher Mann McKay Requires Blocking
23 Discussion of categories
24 AFA of PA apparently responds via 209.86.73.147
25 The Next Step in the Category Dispute
26 The Senate prayer incident
27 Mediation Request
28 Pink Swastika
29 Activism
30 The future of this article
31 LAEC off topic
32 Infobox

Incorrect statement listed in Controversial remarks

Deleting the "After the Hurricane Katrina disaster in 2005, the American Family Association's AgapePress published praise for the hurricane's destruction as an instrument of God's mercy, in that it "wiped out much of the rampant sin common to the city." quote. When reading the article, they present two different opinions of people from New Orleans, and don't favor either side like the controversial remark entry suggests.

Jewish upbringing = Crime

I deleted this:

In the March 2005 issue of American Family Association Journal, the American Family Association author Randall Murphree suggested that a Jewish upbringing leads to hatred of Christians, and by extension, a criminal lifestyle.

Because I was unable to substantiate it. If you go the web site and look in the archive, there is no article by or quote from Randlall Murphree regarind Jewish upbringing or hatred of Christians.

I did a google search, and turned up [1], which quotes from Murphree's article. My read is that someone is INFERRING, from Murphree's description of one Jewish guy, what Murphree thinks of Jews in general. I think the inference is not warranted, at least based on the excerpt that was quoted. So I agree that the deletion, above, is correct. John Broughton 17:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

American Family Foundation

Ive seen a lot of people online interchanging american family association with american family foundation. Are they one and the same?

No. John Broughton 14:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The International Cultic Studies Association (ICSA) is an interdisciplinary network of academicians, professionals, former group members, and families who study and educate the public about social-psychological influence and control, authoritarianism, and zealotry in cultic groups, alternative movements, and other environments. Founded in 1979 as AFF (American Family Foundation), ICSA took on its current name in late 2004 to better reflect the organization's focus and increasingly international and scholarly dimensions. ICSA, the leading professional organization concerned about cultic groups and psychological manipulation, is known for its professionalism and capacity to respond effectively to families, former and current group members, helping professionals, and scholars.[2]

Controversial statements

I don't see references for some of the statements in the controversial statements section. I think we need references, to ensure accuracy, or some items should be removed. DavidBailey 11:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. I also cleaned up the wording to be more accurate. ChristopherM 22:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. DavidBailey 20:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hate Group?

I know the AFA is extremely controversial, but who has labeled it a "hate group?" That's a pretty strong term. Even the SPL doesn't consider them as such: http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=524

Finally, the statement is totally unsourced.

I agree with the previous post--it is strong. I changed the introduction in an effort make it more faithful to the group's purpose and actions. I also included a reference to the SPLC, which seems to support much of what I added.

Looks good. If we are going to keep the reference to "some" calling it a hate group, there should be a source for at least one group or pundit that has made the claim.

Many organizations have labeled the AFA as a hate group, but I doubt they have as much of a solid standing as the SPLC or ADL.

People for the American Way have put the AFA on "Right Wing Watch" [3], however they make no mention of it being a hate group.

Aside from political blogs, a couple organizations that do list the AFA as a hategroup include:

Hatecrime.org which advocates passage of laws that add sexual orientation and gender identity to definition of what a hate crime is and who it is committed against - basically adding stiffer penalties for murdering gay people for being gay.

They also compare the AFA to Adolf Hitler's Nazi regime.

[4]

Cybercast News Service published an article detailing how the SPLC is watching the AFA (among other anti-gay groups) and although the SPLC does not refer to the AFA's anti-gay literature, it does describe it as a "vicious personal attack" and a "holy war" and an "anti-gay crusade".

[5]

I am not sure if those two organizations have as much standing as the SPLC (although CNS is simply reporting on the SPLC's activities and seems relatively neutral) or ADL.

Other sites that list the AFA as a hate group or refer to them as a hate group are mainly composed of staunch critics of the AFA.

However...

Looking at hate groups such as the Family Research Institute (not to be confused with Family Research Council), Traditional Values Coalition, and American Vision and comparing their attitudes of gay people to that of the AFA, CWA, and Focus on the Family... the biggest difference is what additude the group or group leader (Paul Cameron with FRI and Gary DeMar with American Vision, etc) displays towards homosexuality. Where the AFA and others staunchly oppose any acceptance of gays and any rights for gays, American Vision, FRI and TVC promote criminalization of homosexuality with penalties including the death penalty.

The AFA also makes the claim that they don't hate homosexuals, but believe that their sexual orientation can be cured through faith despite scientific evidence pointing to the fact that sexual orientation is biological.

I hope I made myself sound neutral, despite being a critic of the AFA and other groups. I was the one who added them as a hate group and I apologize. If they are to be deemed as such, leave it to someone else. I'll leave this type of issue alone for now unless the SPLC or ADL has an article declaring the AFA (et al) a hate group - then I'll gladly jump on the opportunity to update Wikipedia.

--Joe Capricorn 00:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

If your goal was to sound neutral, you have failed miserably. You quote a number of extremely far left sources and then repeat the highly debatable idea of a biological root of homosexuality as fact.

Still, I think it would be very noteworthy if the SPLC or ADL labeled them a hate group and it should be included in the article.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.195.254.109 (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2006

I thought it was pretty balanced. The "highly debatable idea" has some pretty sound scientific backing - perhaps you should read on the subject with an open mind.

Orpheus 15:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

To each their own, but I don't think you can honestly say many of the groups cited are moderate or even, in some cases, mainstream.

It's because I've examined the issue of a biological origin of homosexuality with an open-mind that I've arrived at the conclusion that it's an open question. Several studies have pointed to the posibility of it being the case, but others have all but disproven the notion. At this stage in the research, being dogmatic on either side is just that - dogma.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.59.43.126 (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2006

You're right, it's very much an open question. However, describing it as "highly debatable" implies that the case for is much weaker than it actually is. Ah, English, where the literal meaning and the generally understood meaning can be poles apart. As for the dogma - I think the current article does a good job of pointing out that the AFA does take an extremely dogmatic view of the subject, and shows no sign that they would be willing to change if there was a bit more scientific evidence.

Incidentally, you should sign your posts with four tildes, and it's polite not to remove previous posts (especially other people's) from talk pages. Orpheus 02:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting, first you imply the matter is settled, then quickly back peddle to the position of "very much an open question." I stand by my assertion that it is "highly" debatable, particularly in light of recent breakthroughs in the field of genetics.

I can't speak for AFA and nor can you. Who knows if they would or would not change their position if conclusive evidence was produced. Unless you can provide a sourced statement from one of their management to that effect, your idea is purely conjecture and nothing more.

I don't know why you suggest I deleted anyone's post because I didn't. I'm behind a common proxy, so the IP address may come up as the same. This is also the reason I didn't sign my post, because I am not logged in at the moment and I'm behind the aforementioned proxy.

Well, I agree that those sources are biased. However, I think that it would be fair to say that AFA is considered a hate group by some far-left sources. --Fearless Son 08:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Much of the 'hate group controversy is due to its campaigns against Judaism, as evidenced by a cursory glance through OneNewsNow.

I would say that the AFA's intense fear of homosexuality, and subsequent articals, justify labeling it as a hate group. Also, few articals on contreversal topics are nonbias, whether intended or not.Monty20python 04:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Monty20python. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 22:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't go there. That's POV. Can you document an "intense fear of homosexuality"? If not, it's POV or original reasearch or suffers some other wiki policy problem. From what I can tell, their issue is not homosexuality per se, rather that it is being promoted to children by numerous sources in a one-sided manner: schools, movies, baseball teams, political leaders, etc. One can oppose teaching children homosexuality while not being against homosexuality. Similarly, one can oppose teaching children heterosexuality while not being against heterosexuality. Most people oppose teaching children either homo or hetero or auto or necro or any kind of sexuality at all where the teaching is one sided. So if you call the AFA a hate group, you would have to call nearly the entire population of the world one big hate group. However, if you can find wikiworthy sources that show, without your injection of POV, that the AFA has an "intense fear of homosexuality," then that may be added to this article within the scope of wiki policy. But until you can show that, POV does not get added to this article. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 02:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Christmas controversies/Merge proposal

The current poll regarding an issue related to this article is now closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as a new section of the article's talk page).

Last issue: Talk:Christmas controversies/Merge proposal

Tuxide 21:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Controversy section

Who picked these as specific controversies? AFA has published dozens, if not hundreds, of articles that can be considered equally "controversial". For instance, why is there no mention of their Ford boycott, which was far more substantial an effort than one article on IKEA? I also would not consider Media Matters to be a particularly neutral website from which to draw references given that they make no secret about their political leanings. I would cite most of this section as original research in that the writer(s) have synthesized published material to advance a position. Bottom line: this section needs a serious rewrite.Citadel18080 06:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I spoke too soon. This whole article needs to be rewritten.Citadel18080 06:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by "the writer(s) have synthesized published material to advance a position"? Having a section that is critical of AFA can be NPOV is published material supports the criticism. How was the published material "synthesized"? thanks. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 14:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Should have added a link to Wikipedia's original research page. Look under heading 3 in the table of contents. Whoever wrote the controversy section picked and chose a handful of articles and efforts from the AFA and labeled them "controversial". This would be no different than if I cited a handful of World War II battles that the United States and its allies lost and declared that Germany and Japan won the war.Citadel18080 05:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You're referring to WP:SYN: "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C." Ok, I understand. However, what are A, B, and C in American Family Association#Controversy? For example, A could be "In 2000, Vice president Tim Wildmon spoke out against gay-straight alliance clubs in schools, stating 'We view these kinds of clubs as an advancement of the homosexual cause.' " and B could be "In a 2005 AFA Journal article, a writer suggests that a subject's pre-Christian criminality was due to his Jewish upbring and, by extension, his 'hostility to Christ'." What exactly is C? What is the position that is being advanced (what position other than, there exists criticism of the AFA)? Thanks. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 17:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

In response to comments from Citadel18080:

"For instance, why is there no mention of their Ford boycott, which was far more substantial an effort than one article on IKEA" - There is no mention because no one has added it to the article yet, unless it was removed for not having a source, is that not obvious?

"I also would not consider Media Matters to be a particularly neutral website from which to draw references given that they make no secret about their political leanings." - A source does not have to be "neutral" to be a reliable source, if that is what you are implying. Read WP:SOURCE for more information.

"I would cite most of this section as original research" - I believe you are largely misunderstood to what original research is. Most of the criticism section have sources citied.

—Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 19:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let me clarify what I meant. Any amount of material on the AFA website can be considered controversial, but it must be written up as controversial in a published source to be allowed in Wikipedia. That is why I cited the IKEA controversy--there is no cited source which backs up the claim that the incident was controversial. That is most certainly original research.

With regards to Christopher Mann McKay statement that a sources does not have to be neutral to be reliable, I was mistaken. However, the article in which the source is cited does have to be neutral, which means that Media Matters information should not simply be cited as if it were from a multi-million subscriber newspaper like the Washington Post. Since the website does have a political leaning, this needs to be specified plainly so that the readers of this article know where their information is coming from.Citadel18080 05:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If that were true, we wouldn't be able to use any material from the Guardian, Telegraph, New York Times, New York Post, or USA Today (to pick five completely at random). All media sources are biased, so representing a fair spectrum of views is the only way to approach objectivity. Orpheus 06:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed the MMfA material from the controversy section for the reasons stated in the page's history. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. And I'd have to see, some of the other "controversies" look contrived as well, like the GSA clubs one. Yes, it's controversial, and yes, there's a cite to an article making it controversial, but the article is not about what Tim Wildmon is saying being controversial. Rather, the controvery is in the GSA clubs themselves, and the Wildmon quote is only a few sentences. Really, it's very tenuous here -- perhaps other media may say something more pertinent, but I think that should be removed as well. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 11:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Think about it. Almost one third of the links used to support the supposed controversies came from MMfA. That in and of itself bespeaks a bias given MMfA's own anti-AFA biases and MMfA funding and mission. Does the MMfA wiki page contain a controversy section where Rush Limbaugh makes up one third of the evidence proving the controversies? I think not. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 11:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

But the answer to that is to provide alternative points of view, not just remove the existing ones. If MMfA says that the AFA are a pack of hypocritical wankers and noone disagrees with them, that's good fodder for the article. If they're howled down by a thousand dissenting voices then take it out. If there's a few equally reputable sources disagreeing with them, put both POVs in the article and let the reader make up their own mind. Orpheus 14:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This brings us back to exactly what information should be included in the Controversy section, or in this article in general. In my opinion, a controversy section is too long when it occupies 50% of a Wikipedia article, which this one did. Remember, Wikipedia is not a forum for debating the politics or religion of any group, but a tool for individuals unfamiliar with a topic to learn some basic information. If I did not know about the AFA before reading this article, I would have concluded that it was a small paramilitary encampment rather than a multimillion-member activist organization.

I checked one of the reference links (link 4 labeled "Target Boycott") and found myself reading a blog entry entitled "Ford, where backing down to nutcases is job one," the "nutcases" obviously referring to the AFA. Several lines were copied almost verbatim from this blog into the "Activism" section without quotes and without clear citation (the article does not make it clear that virtually the entire paragraph is copied from the blog, not just the info about the Target boycott). Aside from the obvious plagarism, the line about the Target boycott takes the boycott out of context. AFA did not boycott Target for "its lack of the word Christmas in advertising," but for removing the word "Christmas" in advertising. There's an obvious difference in meaning. I'm going to remove these sentences.Citadel18080 17:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Orpheus, I am sure you are well intentioned. However, the section is indeed bloated. The removed material comprised the weakest parts of the bloat. Further, precisely because no where else are the "controversies" discovered by MMfA on the web, at least in a wiki worthy fashion, the material is to be removed. If the information is just plain false, then an "alternative point of view" is not enough in an encyclopedic article. If it's false, it's false, and it does not belong in the article to "let the reader make up their own mind." Dan Rather brought out false charges against a sitting President weeks before his reelection. Should that false information be included in a "controversy" section on the President's wiki page just so long as an "alternate" is available? I think not. False information does not need to be "howled down by a thousand dissenting voices" to be removed from the page forthwith.

Nice work, Citadel118080. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 04:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If it's false, then sure, take it out. I haven't seen any evidence it is, though. Orpheus 04:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well look for example where the AFA is skewered merely for responding to someone else's question. Like in the AP yesterday. The AP reported 7 Afghans mistakenly killed by US soldiers, and that was the headline. But the truth appeared in the first paragraph. The Afghans mistook the US troops for the Taliban and accidently fired at them. The US troops shot back, naturally. So, despite the title, the truth is the mistake was the Afghans, not the US. May they all rest in peace from this tragic accident, but the point here is that the way MMfA writes up material is like the way the AP wrote up this story to take the truth but manipulate it to look like the exact opposite. That's what I am saying happened here, at least according to my reading of the MMfA material. The MMfA in the articles I read had to really stretch to find any controversy. I mean is it really controversial that the AFA opposes GSAs? No. Yes, it should be in the article in the appropriate spot, but to claim there is a controversy over the AFA opposing GSAs while that controversy is contrived by a group opposed to the ALA such as the MMfA is seriously evading the whole purpose of Wikipedia. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 07:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

"I mean is it really controversial that the AFA opposes GSAs? No." (quote from LegitimateAndEvenCompelling) — What on earth are you talking about? GSA is a very controversial subject... A source confirming this:

No other extracurricular activity has sparked the controversy and legal challenge the formation of Gay-Straight Alliance clubs has ... 'It's a way to get gay curriculum in schools,' Tim Wildmon, vice president of the Mississippi-based American Family Association, a national conservative watchdog group, was quoted as saying in the Seattle Times(October 16, 2000). 'We view these kinds of clubs as an advancement of the homosexual cause.' Although there are more than 700 Gay-Straight Alliance extracurricular clubs in the nation's schools, the existence of the clubs and their real or perceived agendas continue to ignite protest and controversy"[6]

—Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 16:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

GSAs are, of course, controversial subjects, but the AFA’s opposition to them is not. In fact, its expected. I mean, would you consider a PETA rally against animal cruelty to be controversial? Of course not, because opposing animal cruelty is in PETA’s nature, just as opposing GSA’s is in the AFA’s nature. Like LegitimateAndEvenCompelling said, the GSA mention belongs elsewhere, probably the “Activism” section. Citadel18080 21:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would consider a PETA rally against animal cruelty to be controversial, as according to the dictionary definition. The 4th Edition American Heritage Dictionary states: "Controversy: 1) A dispute, especially a public one, between sides holding opposing views. 2) The act or practice of engaging in such disputes." I would consider AFA's stance on GSA controversial, as they actively engage in the debate regarding GSA, a controversial topic. According to the logic that GSA is not controversial because it is in AFA’s nature makes not sense to me, because, for example, according to that logic, then groups like the KKK would not be considered controversial because it is in there nature to advocate white power/white supremacy —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 21:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

"What on earth are you talking about? GSA is a very controversial subject..." That quote proves my point. The GSA's are controversial.

Also, the point Christopher Mann McKay is making is that GSA are normal and the AFA's opposition is controversial. That in itself is bias not wiki worthy. He has already said the GSAs are controversial. People in the mainstream being opposed to the controversial is not controversial. This controversy belongs on the GSA page as a controversy, or here as an activism item, but the AFA's opposition to GSA is not controversial, and to say it is amounts to bias. Look, I am not opposed to wiki worthy material either for or against the AFA. This GSA issue does not rise to that level. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 22:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I never said anything about "GSA are normal and the AFA's opposition is controversial." Organizations opposed and in favor of GSA have controversial views; I have no idea how you interpreted my words to mean otherwise. The point I am trying to make is if an organization holds a view of either side of a controversial topic, dispite the nature of that organization, that view is a controversial view. I don't think the section should be titled 'Controversy,' but rather 'Controversial views,' or 'Controversial beliefs,' which more accurately describes AFAs beliefs, which are controversial. IMO, the readers should be informed the controversial nature of AFA's beliefs. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 22:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree. You said "if an organization holds a view of either side of a controversial topic, despite the nature of that organization, that view is a controversial view." I disagree. That awards people claiming a controversy exists with there actually being a controversy. It's like throwing skunk juice on World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz then claiming he has to step down as President because he smells like a skunk. Same thing here. Listen, I have thought I've seen controversies too when there actually are not, at least not in a wiki worthy fashion. So find wiki worthy sources that say the AFA's stance against GSAs is controversial, then the matter gets added under the aegis of the wiki rules. The wiki rules rule here, not you and not me. Get some more sources for the AFA's being against GSA being a controversy, not for the GSAs themselves being controversies, then you'll be completely covered by Wiki policy and I will no longer object. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 23:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

What wiki rules are you referencing here? I wasn’t aware of any policy regarding this. I don't believe I can find a source that says "AFA has a controversial stance on GSA," as there isn’t an abundance of sources on the AFA’s stance on GSA. The source I referenced earlier in this discussion states in the sentence after the it quotes the AFA VP, "the existence of the clubs and their real or perceived agendas continue to ignite protest and controversy," which I understood to be implying the sentence before (the quotes from AFA VP) was controversy ‘ignited’ from GSA. Maybe I'm mistaken, but my main point it just to notify readers AFA's view on GSA's is controversial. Those 'less educated' people who don't follow the news and are over 30 year old might not know anything about the GSA and might not know it is a controversial topic. If you don't the reference to AFA's stance on GSA under a seperate 'Controversy' section, at least mention how it's controversial in the same sentence or paragraph wherever you intergrate it into. It seems to me like POV by not labeling anything controversial when it is.—Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 00:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The GSA is controversial, not the AFA's stance on the GSA. It just doesn't belong here. But let's look at what you said. "I don't believe I can find a source that says 'AFA has a controversial stance on GSA,' as there isn’t an abundance of sources on the AFA’s stance on GSA." Exactly. Therefore, it is not wiki worthy. This is an encyclopedia of proven stuff, not a message board for possible theories. (Honestly, when I was new here, I used to believe as you do, so your concerns are completely understandbale to me.) Regarding possible theories, you said, "Maybe I'm mistaken, but my main point it just to notify readers AFA's view on GSA's is controversial." That is a lovely thing to notify people about, but, being as this is wikipedia, it needs to be well sourced in accordance with wiki rules. If you can provide that, then people will be convinced. As it stands now, MMfA is the only source making that statement. The 1990 Seattle story went to a different issue, that of the GSAs themselves being controversial. Your efforts to notify the readers are well intentioned I'm sure but to be added to a wiki article, more is needed than a biased MMfA article and your good intentions to notify people. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 00:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with what you are saying, especially these 'wiki rules' you claim, but that's alright. I'm not going to waste my time debating it. I'm not going to revert your edits or anything, I was just trying to express my opinion on the subject. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 01:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Miscellaneous Changes

Since there's been no objections, I'm removing the IKEA controversy for lack of evidence (i.e. the writer found an article on the AFA website that he/she thought was controversial and explained why they thought so). In reference to the above discussion, I'm moving the GSA controversy to the "Activism" section, as I checked its source and found the article to be pro-GSA, and the story was not something that was picked up by any major media source. If every little dispute between the AFA and opposing groups were labeled as "controversies" and added here, the article would be ten times as long as it is now. Finally, I'm removing the Scott Lively reference for lack of citations and because this article is about the AFA in general, not about one of its fifty affiliated state groups. You wouldn't find a reference to CA governor Grey Davis' recall election in the United States article (trust me, I checked). If the person who included this want it to be included, then they can create a seperate article about either Scott Lively or AFA's California division and put the info there.Citadel18080 01:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Great work. The article is looking more encyclopedic and less rantish. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 01:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. For the record, I also removed the two statements under the IKEA controversy, as it appears that these were untentionally bunched together with IKEA into one paragraph. The mention of the ACLU was moved to "Activism" while the mention of prefabricated surveys was removed entirely because it appeared to be more of an attack on the AFA than serious encyclopedic writing.Citadel18080 02:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Disputed Text

Since there is a dispute about this text, I am going to move it here for the time being:

"AFA California leader Scott Lively is a co-author of The Pink Swastika which claims that many leaders in the German Nazi regime, including Hitler himself, were homosexual."

Like most of the deplorable Controversy section that was here before, this particular controversy is not sourced (i.e. no news artice from a prominent, recognized news source labels it as such), and Wikipedia does not allow this type of original research in its articles. I quote from the afore-linked policy:

"Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be accompanied by a reliable source. Material that counts as "original research" within the meaning of this policy is material for which no reliable source can be found and which is therefore believed to be the original thought of the Wikipedian who added it. The only way to show that your work is not original research is to produce a reliable published source who writes about the same claims or advances the same argument as you."

This is why I have moved the text here. Unless someone can produce a viable source referring to this as a controversy, it does not belong in the article. The same can be said of the Keith Ellison piece--not one of the sources mentions the AFA by name as being involved in the dispute. I am leaving that where it is for now to avoid being accused of POV but, really, it needs a source, too.Citadel18080 21:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I put it back in the article with two sources. I am really surprised someone would consider a book, "which claims that many leaders in the German Nazi regime, including Hitler himself, were homosexual and claims eight of the top ten serial killers in the US were homosexuals" as not controversial. Statements only have to have citations if it is likely someone will challenge them, but it seems like on this article you challenge things as OR when most people would consider it common knowledge. It seems strange you would rather have this statement removed and spend time debating it on the talk page rather than finding a citation on google (take less than 5 minutes), which would improve the article. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 02:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You cannot simply decide that something is controversial without properly citing it first. Were the remarks in Lively's book open to controversy? Absolutely. Was there an actual controversy surrounding them? Yes, now that I've seen the evidence. Remember what the original research article says, "The only way to show that your work is not original research is to produce a reliable published source who writes aout the same claims or advances the same argument as you." The burden of proof was not on me, but on the person who published the statement in this article, and whoever that was did not initially include a citation. In fact, I did do some checking, searching Google News and its archives for "American Family Association controversy". I found no recent stories, and only incidents in the archives in which the AFA was the accuser, and was not being accused. Those types of incidents belong in the "Activism" section. Now that you've provided a citation for the Scott Lively incident, I will not revert the edit, but please understand that any incident in which the "controversy" has been inferred by the writer without citing a reliable outside source is fair game for deletion or discussion on the talk page.Citadel18080 03:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to make a slight correction. In a previous post, I stated that the AFA had 50 state affiliates. In reality they only have 19. Apologies for that. Curiously, though, it does not list Scott Lively as the CA affiliate on its main "Affiliates" page. His reference on the AFA site is still accessible via Google, but the link to the CA AFA website is broken. I'm not advocating the removal of the Lively reference from this page, just wondering if he is still affiliated with the group.Citadel18080 03:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

Why don't we just rename the "Controversy" section. It seems that these things aren't in dispute, what's, er, controversial is that they are controversies. Call it "Opinions Expressed by the AFA" or something. Orpheus 05:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The line between "Controversy" and "Activism" is being blurred. Controversy sections typically contain lawsuits, other legal troubles, misbehavior, etc. of individuals/organizations. Thus far, I can find very little sourced controversy surrounding the AFA, with the exception of the Scott Lively piece and the filter block. One other thing that could be listed there is the ACLU if they have ever directly sued the AFA. Besides that, what do you think about having a seperate article about AFA activism listing boycotts, etc.?Citadel18080 05:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the opinions expressed section name change, but I think there should be a reference re: their opinions are about controversial topics or something like that. I also agree with a new section for boycotts.—Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 06:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

An "Opinions Expressed" section would work, but it should probably be on a different page given the number of opinions the AFA has expressed. The only thing that concerns me about a seperate page is that it might violate Wikipedia:Content Forking. I'm looking into that now.

Also, the Keith Ellison piece needs to either be moved to Activism or removed entirely, as the sources cited seem to have a controversy with Dennis Prager, not the AFA. Further, by analyzing the AFA's POV from the perspective of one legal analyist (Eugene Volokh), the author violates Wikipedia:No original research, which gives this example paragraph:

"If Jones's claim that he consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style, which requires citation of the source actually consulted. The Chicago Manual of Style does not call violating this rule "plagiarism." Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.

"This entire paragraph is original research, because it expresses the editor's opinion that, given the Chicago Manual of Style's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. To make the paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source is needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Chicago Manual of Style and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia."

Since Volokth had no direct conflict with the AFA, using him as a resource violates the above policy. Until we decide what to do with the Controversy section, however, I'm not going to touch it.Citadel18080 17:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Systemic bias

The page as it now stands does not even give a neutral description of the group, without interjecting criticism. Criticism should be identified as such, and not be included in sections which purport to be neutral. Recent edits that add a description of the group by one of its critics - without question, apparently without understanding, and without any rebuttal from a sympathizer adds to this already apparent bias. Parroting the critics in a section that is purportedly neutral makes the "editor" not an NPOV editor but simply another critic. It's time to clean up this article. At least give a fair and neutral description before the criticism section. Pollinator 02:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

3	It's really pretty simple: → Mind NPOV ← → Don't be a dick ← → Ignore all rules ←

Pollinator, I'll have to agree. The article appears to have been either written or largely editted by those who have a serious axe to grind. As you know, but some others need guidance on, a wiki page is supposed to be encyclopedic, not a method to air grievances by quoting from sources seeking the end of the existence of the subject of a wiki page.

Everyone, let's all make this page encyclopedic. Let's get rid of the POV and the weak citations to politically one-sided sources like Media Matters for America.

Thanks. And I added a relevant userbox. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 03:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not against Wikipedia Policy to use organizations, such as Media Matters, as reliable sources. Sources need to have editorial oversight oversight and fact checking to be considered reliable sources; an organization does not have to be neutral to be a reliable source. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 17:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Categories are biased and wrong

Part of the systemic bias in this article includes some categories that are sometimes POV and sometimes plain wrong. Now I removed them and the removal was reverted in seconds with the request that the changes be discussed in Talk. Fair enough. (Although the entire article is tagged for its biased, if every single word needs to be discussed first in Talk, that could act as a means to prevent the removal of bias from the article.) Therefore I'll explain.

Censorship is not true

I suggest removing the Censorship category. As the AFA says, "AFA does not support 'censorship.' Censorship, by definition is government imposed. What AFA does support is responsibility." That is factually and legally the truth. The ALA does not practice nor advocate censorship. The reason the category is here is what then. i think it's just part of the systemic bias and should be removed.

This statement couldn't be any further from the truth. Censorship is defined as the practice of censoring, which does not mean it has to do only with government imposed censorship. I haven't looked into if AFA supports government imposed censorship, such as obscenity laws, FCC enforcement, and such, but even if they don't, it does not mean they don't support censorship. AFA believes organizations should be "responsible" and censor porn, most references to what they view as promoting the homosexual cause, and other such things. AFA has boycotted many organizations because AFA believes those organizations should censor material that AFA views as indecent; for example, AFA protested Blockbuster for renting NC-17 videos. Therefore, they do support censorship. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 16:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

And once again, you are showing bias, Christopher. They are not using any force whatsoever to impose their viewpoint, except the power of the marketplace, informing people of the policies of a business, and encouraging them to buy elsewhere. It's the good old American way. WHEN they seize and burn offending material, THEN you may call it censorship. Until this, you should avoid using such hot-button terms, which only reveal a POV. Pollinator 18:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Since when did censorship involve using "force ... to impose their viewpoint"? Oh yeah, since never. Censorship is censorsip, even if the AFA does not "seize and burn offending material." AFA does not need to use force to impose their viewpoint. You said it yourself; the AFA is "informing people of the policies of a business, and encouraging them to buy elsewhere," which means they are boycotting an organization for the purpose of persuading the organization to censor something (dozens of examples of this). This is considered supporting censorship. There is no bias by stating the AFA is in favor of censorship, it is a well-known fact. The AFA would not boycott places like Blockbuster if they were not in favor of censorship. I can't believe people are actually contesting this and are disregarding the definition of "censorship" by claiming it is only censorship if the AFA uses force, which is, of course, not true at all.—Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 18:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

As always, a good POV check is to reverse the protagonists. In this case it's easy because it's already in the article. Were you as quick to add the "censorship" label to the actions of CyberPatrol? Pollinator 19:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

CyberPatrol is owned by SurfControl. On SurfControl's wikipedia article there I added Category:Censorware, which is a sub category of Category:Internet censorship, which is a sub category of Category:Censorship. So, yes, according to your "POV check". —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 19:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Mann McKayuser, what you have said about the AFA's boycotting actions being censorship so far is original research. Back it up, please, with wiki worthy sources. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 01:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The AFA supports censorship by definition. To sensor, "v. To examine and expurgat." (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition). That is exactly what AFA wants organizations they are boycotting to do. Like how the AFA wanted Blockbuster to "examine" all movies and "expurgate" the NC-17 ones. Exact by definition. It is ridiculous you demand citations for every little thing when they are obivously unneeded. You can't cite a category anyways... —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 01:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I quote from the AFA webpage:

"Does AFA Support Censorship? AFA does not support "censorship." Censorship, by definition is government imposed. What AFA does support is responsibility. Producers and advertisers alike realize that what people see and hear does affect them. (If this were not true, they would not pay the astronomical fees for advertising.) Our belief is that if we can encourage advertisers to sponsor only quality programming, then networks and producers will not have the financial encouragement to produce shows diametrically opposed to the traditional family."

As I stated under the "Homophobia" discussion, unless you can provide evidence stating that the AFA is deliberately misleading its members and the public, you can't include the organization in this category. Hypothetically, let's say you're right and the AFA does support censorship. They have no way to enforce it. The definition you cited requires the party in question to "examine and expurgat". The AFA can legally do neither.Citadel18080 02:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

“Does AFA Support Censorship? AFA does not support "censorship." Censorship, by definition is government imposed.” — Quoting this is completely irrelevant, as the AFA is obviously strictly defining censorship as government imposed; however, censorship, like most other words in the English language, has multiple meanings, which this definition does not include.

"As I stated under the 'Homophobia' discussion, unless you can provide evidence stating that the AFA is deliberately misleading its members and the public, you can't include the organization in this category." — Supporting censorship and "deliberately misleading its members and the public" are two entirely different things. I have do need to find a reference re: misleading members, as this has no relevance to censorship.

"The definition you cited requires the party in question to "examine and expurgate" The AFA can legally do neither. — The AFA is a very large organization and they can support censorship via boycotts; they are not legally bound from the right to boycott, why do you believe this is illegal? Back to the Blockbuster example… The party, Blockbuster, was pressured by a boycott from the AFA to "examine" their videos and then to "expurgate" the NC-17 ones. AFA sponsored and supported this boycott and therefore were sponsoring and supporting the censorship of NC-17 movies. I have explained this before. It fits the description perfect via dictionary, so the dictionary is the source.

—Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 15:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You may want to refer to the actual definition of “censorship” not “censor”. My Merrimam-Webster dictionary states that censorship is, “the action of a censor esp. in stopping the transmission or publication of matter considered objectionable”. You’re twisting the definition of “censor” to include the AFA, and the definition you cited is too vague to apply in this case (i.e. it provides no description of the groups which engage in censorship). The AFA “examines” movies, but they don’t themselves “expurgat” them, nor can they "stop" Blockbuster from carrying them. Blockbuster was under no legal directive to follow the AFA’s recommendations; they chose to do so. In the future, they may choose to restock NC-17 movies. The AFA is not keeping them from doing so. Citadel18080 16:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we've gotten a little off topic anyway. Christopher, just because the AFA's definition of censorship does not match your interpretation of the definition of censorship in the dictionary doesn't give you sufficient grounds to accuse them of such. Tell me where the AFA has been given the authority by the government to censor, or has done so through criminal means. Remember, censorship means "to stop the production" of materials. Citadel18080 16:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)

"You may want to refer to the actual definition of 'censorship' not 'censor'" — Do you understand how to use a dictionary? The reson I used 'censor' instead of 'censorship' is because, according to Merriam Webster, censorship is "the institution, system, or practice of censoring"[7].

"You’re twisting the definition of “censor” to include the AFA, and the definition you cited is too vague to apply in this case (i.e. it provides no description of the groups which engage in censorship). The AFA 'examines' movies, but they don’t themselves 'expurgat' them, nor can they 'stop' Blockbuster from carrying them." — How many times have I explained this and you still can’t understand? The definition is not too vague and I am not twisting any definition; you are wrong. Lets go back to the Blockbuster example, yet again, because you don't seem to understand this simple concept. You claim the AFA can’t "stop" Blockbuster from carrying NC-17 videos, but AFA successfully stopped Blockbuster from caring NC-17 videos. The AFA didn't do this by force of course, they boycotted Blockbuster and then as a result Blockbuster willingly decided to "examine" their videos and "expurgate" the NC-17 ones. The reason Blockbuster did this was because of pressure from the AFA; therefore, the AFA was supporting the censorship of NC-17 videos.

"Christopher, just because the AFA's definition of censorship does not match 'your interpretation' of the definition of censorship in the dictionary doesn't give you sufficient grounds to accuse them of such" — AFA's defines 'censorship' as only being government imposed, which is untrue, as censorship, according the dictionary, does not exclusively mean only government imposed. Therefore, according the dictionary definition, AFA supports censorship and this is a fact.

"Tell me where the AFA has been given the authority by the government to censor, or has done so through criminal means. Remember, censorship means "to stop the production" of materials." — AFA has been given no authority by the government. According to Merriam-Webster "tr.v to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable." According to American Heritage "tr.v to examine and expurgate. " Both of these definitions state that censorship does not mean only government imposed. Also, censorship does not only mean "to stop the production," it also means to "supress or delete," like how Blockbuster supressed NC-17 videos.

—Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 17:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Based on the above, I will now remove this category from the page. For example, Blockbuster volunteering to remove NC-17 titles from its own shelves as a result of AFA pressure is not AFA censorship -- it's a business decision. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 11:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This has been hashed out before, months ago, and the consensus was that the category should stay. The AFA advocates government restrictions on broadcast television and other such forms of censorship. Other pressure groups are included in the censorship category, as well as articles about Muslim groups who boycott newspapers for criticising prophets. Orpheus 13:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I read the indicated discussion, and it does not appear that a consensus was reached. The discussion just stopped with two users (yourself and Zuejay) advocating the inclusion of the AFA and two others (Arichnad and Tuxide) advocating removal. Citadel18080 15:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"For example, Blockbuster volunteering to remove NC-17 titles from its own shelves as a result of AFA pressure is not AFA censorship -- it's a business decision." — Err, yet again... Blockbuster censored NC-17 videos from being rented. Blockbuster did this is response to AFA's boycott. Your correct that Blockbuster’s business decision was to voluntarily censor NC-17 videos by not renting them; however, this business decision was the result of a boycott by the AFA, who supported the censorship of the NC-17 videos in their boycott. Therefore, AFA supported censorship by boycotting Blockbuster to encourage them to Blockbuster voluntarily stop carrying/renting NC-17 videos. So, AFA supports censorship. Why can't you comprehend this simple logic? There are many other examples besides Blockbuster, I am just using the Blockbuster example to explain this simple concept. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 19:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we get the concept, and have in fact gotten it for some time now. What you call "censorship", we call a "business decision". Perhpas we should consider another definition of censorship, the one from the Wikipedia article on the topic, "Censorship is defined as the removal and withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body." By advocating the removal of NC-17 movies from Blockbuster, the AFA was not advocating the removal of the material from the entire public. I noticed an article on Google News today saying that a computer game has been banned from Britain (i.e. it cannot be legally sold in that country). That would be censorship, because it was imposed by a controlling body (the British government). What has the AFA done to stop the public from going to the adult video store down the block, dialing a phone sex number, or logging on to a pornography site? Nothing, with the exception of advocating that these materials be made less available to children, which was the basis of the Blockbuster boycott (it was, in your own words, a "horrible example"). I know you were just trying to make a point, but the fact that the AFA targets individual companies in its boycotts does not constitute "censorship", because for every corporation that consents with their requests, there are a dozen more willing to get their hands dirty. The public has access to all of them and, according to the definition of censorship on Wikipedia which I assume is also used as the basis for the category on censorship, the AFA does not have the power to censor, and thus should not be included in the category. (Just to stop a potential counter-argument before it is posted, the Censorship article mentions religous groups among the groups who practice censorship. I remind you that the Taliban was a religous group which had censorship power as the government of Afghanistan. The AFA has no such power in the U.S.) Citadel18080 00:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

What you call "censorship", we call a "business decision" — I call it censorship because that is what the dictionary calls it. You call it business decision because you choose to violate WP:NPOV policy by ignoring a reliable source, the dictionary, even though you have no source backing up what you are saying.

Perhpas we should consider another definition of censorship, the one from the Wikipedia article on the topic, "Censorship is defined as the removal and withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body." — I believe the dictionary is more reliable then Wikipedia (especially when the article is not a featured article). I could easily change the Censorship article to include the definition I just referenced (because it is a reliable source per WP:VER). This has no relevance, but just for fun: Blockbuster is “a controlling group,” which, of course, controls the videos that may be rented by their customers at their stores and via Internet. As a result of the AFA protest, Blockbuster ordered the “removal” and withholding” of all NC-17 videos. Fits the Wikipedia description perfect.

By advocating the removal of NC-17 movies from Blockbuster, the AFA 'was not advocating the removal of the material from the entire public' — If you are saying this because in your unsourced Wikipedia referenced definition it states “…withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body," then you are largely mistaken. Where did you get this idea censorship is only censorship if it applies to the “entire public”? Even your definition says “public,” not the “entire public.”

What has the AFA done to stop the public from going to the adult video store down the block, dialing a phone sex number, or logging on to a pornography site? Nothing, with the exception of advocating that these materials be made less available to children, which was the basis of the Blockbuster boycott (it was, in your own words, a "horrible example") — You have no source stating that censorship is only censorship if it applies to the “entire public,” while I have sources that say it is censorship and makes no reference to having to apply to the entire public. Also, please don’t misconstrue my words. Thank you.

The public has access to all of them and, according to the definition of censorship on Wikipedia which I assume is also used as the basis for the category on censorship, the AFA does not have the power to censor, and thus should not be included in the category.

Once again, this unsourced definition on Wikipedia is not a super reliable source. I could easily put the definition according to the American heritage dictionary on the article and then I would be even more correct. Plus, the definition on Wikipedia says nothing about having the power to censor the entire public like you claim. Also, if you are claiming the AFA does not have the power to sensor you are wrong. They have the power via their large membership through boycotts, some which had success, like Blockbuster, so they do have power. They don't have government imposed power of course, but the definition of censorship is usually done by the government, not allways.

—Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 02:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This argument is getting us nowhere and will continue indefinitely until other users weigh in. Putting aside whether you think you are right or not, would you be willing to allow the removal of the Censorship categorization pending the resolution of this argument, as is compliant with Wikipedia policy on such disputes? Citadel18080 05:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

AGREE, and may I politely suggest the same for the Discrimination category. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 05:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't support that at all, for two reasons - one, there's plenty of reliable sources (including the AFA themselves) showing that they advocate censorship (for example [8], where they encourage members to ask the government to censor television in case anyone sees a nipple). The second reason is that the "wiki policy" you're apparently referring to suggests that controversial pages should be left in their original state until consensus is reached. This may need to go to mediation, given that you seem very dogmatic in your insistence that the AFA advocates neither discrimination nor censorship. Orpheus 06:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Orpheus.—Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 11:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Orpheus has now wandered into Christopher Mann McKay land. Orpheus cites http://www.afa.net/activism/FCCComplaint.asp as proof of the advocacy of censorship.

Advocacy of censorship, even if it were true, and no wikiworthy sources proving it is true have yet been asserted, is not the same as censorship;
Making a legitimate request to the FCC based on indecency is not censorship and it is not the advoccy of censorship, rather it is exercising your American rights to seek redress from the government in a manner specifically provided by the government as a means of seeking redress, and any removal of material based thereon is only in complaince with existing FCC rules and regulations. One would have to argue that the FCC is censorious to also make the claim that the AFA is also censorious for seeking redress in accordance with FCC rules;
Claiming that seeking redress from the government in the proper manner is censorship, combined with the many, many people making such claims in this particular instance (Jackson's Super Bowl "wardrobe malfunction"), does not mean all those people are all censors, and to say so really weakens the argument in favor of the claim that the AFA is practicing censorship to almost nil.

Orpheus, like Christopher Mann McKay, has now proven to me to argue from the POV that the AFA is both discriminatory and censorious, and matches the facts to fit the hypothesis. Yet still, after all this time, not a single wikiworthy source, not one, has been presented to prove the POV assertions of these two editors that the AFA discriminates or censors. Evidence asserted is instead no evidence at all, as exemplified by the FCC Complaint just discussed that is used for the basis of the claim that the AFA censors.

This is a case of all talk and no action. Both categories are based on the POV of these two editors. After all this time, both editors continue to fail to present wikiworthy sources for their POVs that the AFA discriminates and that it censors. Both categories should be removed. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 12:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed and done. The article is becoming more encyclopedic. Pollinator 16:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked at the categories in question? They are not "Organisations that censor" and "Organisations that discriminate". They are "articles related to censorship/discrimination". I do not know if the AFA discriminates - I don't know or care about its hiring practices, although I would be surprised if gay atheists stood much chance of getting hired. That is not the point. I think it's indisputable that the AFA belongs in the same category as Bowdler and the Legion of Decency. As for whether they advocate censorship, do you seriously believe that if something is popular it isn't censorship? The government restricts what can be broadcast on television. That is censorship. Whether it's a good thing or not is open for debate, and this is not the place for that debate. The question here is whether the AFA lobbies for the government to continue such censorship, and it is clear from their own website that they do. Orpheus 13:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Orpheus, the AFA website speifically says that they do not support censorship because it is government-imposed. I've seen no Wikipedia policy that says we shouldn't take what the website says at anything less than face value and I still require Wikipedia editors who advocate its inclusion in this category to produce neutral sources directly linking the AFA to Censorship, as specified under Wikipedia:No original research. Read the policy. No Wikipedia editor can perform their own analysis, which is why Christopher Mann McKay's user of the dictionary is considered original research here--it does not directly mention the AFA. Likewise, you cannot cite something from the AFA website that does not mention censorship. By your analysis, the AFA's actions are censorship, not by sourced facts. Citadel18080 16:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Citadel-You are so very wrong. Also, as stated before censorship have multiple meanings, it can mean government imposed or not government imposed. Just beacuse the AFA claims they are not in favor of censorship by a government does not mean they are not in favor of non-government imposed censorship. Again, no analysis here, you must be very confused. I am very familar with WP:OR; maybe you should read it? —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 16:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

But they do support censorship when it agrees with their agenda. The AFA has lobbied the government, in particular the FCC, to restrict further the sort of content that can be shown on broadcast television. That's advocating censorship, regardless of what their FAQ says. They're in favour of [9], for instance, which is clearly aimed at government censorship of obscenity. It doesn't matter if you agree with that or not, it's still censorship. It's a neutral term - the pejorative meaning is purely in the eyes of the reader. Orpheus 17:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) This is a summary the argument you're making in paragraph form:

"The AFA states on their website that they do not support censorship because, “censorship, by definition, is government imposed.” However, this is not consistent with the definition of “censor” provided by the American Heritage dictionary. Instead, the dictionary states, “to examine and expurgat”."

Now, compare this to the example provided by Wikipedia of "unpublished synthesis of published material":

And Wikipedia’s explanation…

Some parallels between the two scenarios:

Both the American Heritage Dictionary and the Chicago Manual of Style are widely-read and accepted works in their fields of study, having been in publication for an extended period of time (AHD: almost 40 years and CMoS: 101 years).
Both cite a source that does not specifically comment on the dispute (plagiarism and the AFA, respectively)Citadel18080 19:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe you understand what synthesis means. A dictionary definition does not require someone to have 'synthesize' it. Your above example does not apply to this situation and your claim of OR is false. Again, please stop falsely accusing me of WP:OR violations; these claims of policy violation are untrue, unproven, and annoying to have to rebut over and over. Thank you. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 19:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You are not responding to my "claims", just ignoring them. Citadel18080 20:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

We need another opinion. Pollinator, please comment. Citadel18080 20:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You, Polliinator, and LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, can all claim this is POV, or is OR, but the fact is that it is not. You have failed to quote any direct policy that is being violated because there is no policy violation in having these categories. Your reference to "synthesis of published material" being OR does not apply here because using the dictionary as a reference is not a synthesis of anything. Understand this please and stop accusing me of violating policy. Thank you. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 21:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It's just demonization.

Unfortunately those with an agenda to destroy will use straw men, demonization, ridicule, and any other propaganda device they can throw in. And this article (and a number of others in Wikipedia) has too long been in the hands of those with such an agenda. The categorizations are propaganda, pure and simple.

Wikipedia's job is to neutrally give information on the social changes, movements, organizations, and agencies that are occuring in our times. But that is impossible when the critics of some organizations are able to manipulate the article so that it is built entirely within the framework of the critics' points of reference and terminology. If the article is framed by the critics, it becomes advocacy rather than reporting.

You have to stand back a little farther to be neutral.

It is the right of every citizen to inform others (free speech), and there's nothing wrong with using the power of the purse to vote in the economy. It is also the right of citizens to seek to influence the making of laws and judgements which it considers right and/or favorable. Citizens do not give up those rights because they are "hicks" from Middle America. And they also have the right (because Wikipedia purports to be neutral) not to be demonized for doing the vary same actions which the critics would approve, if it were their favored groups doing it. Pollinator 02:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to the bottom of the talk page for a possible compromise on all 3 category debates. Citadel18080 01:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It is also the right of citizens to seek to influence the making of laws and judgements which it considers right and/or favorable. Citizens do not give up those rights because they are "hicks" from Middle America — I never said citizens in hick towns give up any right to influence laws. I said hick states don't decide if something is or is not discrimination because they pass propositions outlawing same-sex marriage because you were implying if something is legal, then it is not discrimination. These propositions do not change the definition of a word.

And they also have the right (because Wikipedia purports to be neutral) not to be demonized for doing the vary same actions which the critics would approve, if it were their favored groups doing it. — What are you talking about? If you are referencing to me using the word hick, that isn't demonizing, it is the truth. No policy prohibits this. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 04:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

See Hick. Pollinator 04:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Why? —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 04:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Discrimination is POV

I suggest removing the discrimination category. It is POV to say the AFA discriminates. If it does discriminate, it does not now appear in the article. Rather, the AFA defends the rights of those discriminated against, and was itself "discriminated" against by Internet filters. And I do not think these two things are enough to make the article get added to the Discimination category, or any wiki page tangentially mentioning any topic could be added to dozens of catagories. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 03:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Bad idea. It is not POV. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 04:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay fine. I'm not arguing with you. Just provide the sources to show it. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 04:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Has the AFA ever been sued successfully (remember: innocent until proven guilty)?Citadel18080 05:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

There are already sources that black up that AFA discrimates against homosexuals, is this disputed? I don't know anything if the AFA has been sued, why is that relevant? —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 16:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It's relevant because Wikipedia articles deal in facts, not assumptions or opinions. I need to know in what case and in what court it was ruled that the AFA practiced discrimination. As I've said before, the opinions of the editors do not count. Citadel18080 02:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

IIt is a fact that AFA is against: same-sex marriage, same-sex civil unions, extending anti-discrimination laws to homosexuals, and allowing homosexuals the right to adopt. These are facts, not opinion of the editors. I can find sources for these stances easy. As far as courts, an organization can be discriminatory against homosexuals without it being illegal. There needs not to be a court decision to prove the AFA discriminates against homosexuals. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 17:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Officially, Wikipedia takes no stance on any of these issues, and you cannot use Wikipedia as a platform to promote either stance. Your views and mine do not matter. Citadel18080 02:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

My view is, by definition the AFA advocates discriminates against homosexuals, as according to the dictionary. The dictionary is considered a reliable source. This is in accordance the policy WP:VER. My view does matter because it is supported by policy and I don't know why you claim my does not matter. Unlike you, I am not trying to promote any stance. I am expressing it is a bad idea to remove Category:Discrimination because the AFA discriminates against homosexuals. Removing a fact just because it may sound like something negative is an obvious violation of WP:NPOV policy. Please stop wasting time debating this. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 03:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Based on the above, I will now remove this category from the page. I think it is clear personal opinions are not enough to support the claim that the AFA discriminates and no wiki worthy sources have been provided to say it does. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 11:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong to remove this. The definition of discrimination is not a personal opinion. According to the dictionary definition of 'discrimination,' the AFA practices discrimination. Once again, according to WP:VER policy, the dictionary is a reliable source. You should not delete something backed by a reliable source, especially without consensus. Please stop this disruptive behavior.—Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 19:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, you provide no proof other than saying it is obvious or saying the AFA is against some people getting more rights than others. All original research. No sourced proof.

HELP - SOMEONE PLEASE HELP - THIS GUY KEEPS PUSHING HIS POV AND ORIGINAL RESEARCH. This and other POV categories need to be removed for failure to comply with wiki policy, but I don't feel like engaging in an edit war. As noted, this article is loaded with POV, and all efforts to make it encyclopedic are thwarted by people who clearly are vehemently opposed to the subject of this wiki page and who, more importantly, run roughshod over wiki policy. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 23:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you fully understand what OR is. The AFA discriminates against homosexuals from having the same rights as heterosexuals. You claim this is OR; however if you take a look at AFA's web site you can find many examples of them stating they are against homosexual marriage, adoption, civil unions, and other such rights that the AFA believes heterosexuals should only have. Why would the AFA create web sites like NoGayMarriage.com, if not because they believe the right to marriage should only be for heterosexuals? They are against gay marriage and other gay rights, this is not OR, this is a fact. According to The American Heritage Dictionary, "Discrimination 3) Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice"[10] Therefore, the AFA discriminates against homosexuals because they advocate treating them different because of their sexual orientation (category) rather than personal merit; perfect description match. There is no violation of WP:NPOV in having the Category:Discrimination, as the AFA discriminates against homosexuals according the dictionary, which is a reliable source in accordace to WP:VER policy. Please stop falsely accusing me of violating policy. Thank you. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 01:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Advocating for something does not mean you are discriminating against something. Advocating for marriage between one man and one woman does not mean you are discriminating against people who wish to marry animals, for example. I advocate for people to become educated about how the American Library Association's control over public libraries endangers children nationwide. That does not mean I discriminate against the ALA. Neither do I have the power to do so. The AFA's advocating for something does not mean they are discriminating against its opposite, and they do not have the power to do so.

The Democrat National Committee advocates for Democrats but not for Joe Lieberman. Does that mean it is discriminating against Joe Lieberman? Of course not. Or if it is, why isn't the Discrimination category on that page as well? For the same reasons it doesn't belong here either.

The editor still has not provided wikiworthy sources to prove the AFA discriminates. The editor only makes conclusory statements about how obvious it is. I could care less whether the article states that the AFA discriminates either in the text or the categories, but seeing no wikiworthy sources and only original research, I persist in requesting the removal of this category and other categories similarly supported only by original research in respect of wiki policies--LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 02:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the point is that the AFA advocates for discrimination. That is clear and unambiguous from their own policies page, and that supports including them in the discrimination category. Orpheus 02:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop it. They are not supporting discrimination. Prove it, don't just keep saying they do. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 02:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent for another explaination of how LegitimateAndEvenCompelling's comments are incorrect or not relvant)

Advocating for something does not mean you are discriminating against something. — If you are advocating denying right to a certain group of people, it is called discrimination, according to the dictionary. I know that advocating for “something” might not be discrimination, but in this particular case it is.

Advocating for marriage between one man and one woman does not mean you are discriminating against people who wish to marry animals, for example. — Marriage only between a man and women is discriminating against homosexuals, not animals. I am very confused if you actually mean animals, or if you are referring to homosexuals in a disgraceful way, because animals have nothing to do with this.

I advocate for people to become educated about how the American Library Association's control over public libraries endangers children nationwide. That does not mean I discriminate against the ALA. — Of course it does not, because advocating about the ALA is not advocating denying rights to a certain group of people. What is your point here?

The AFA's advocating for something does not mean they are discriminating against its opposite, and they do not have the power to do so. — I agree because the AFA is advocating “something,” it does not mean they are discriminating; however, when they are advocating a group of people (homosexuals) not have the same rights as heterosexuals, it does mean they are discriminating.

The editor still has not provided wikiworthy sources to prove the AFA discriminates. The editor only makes conclusory statements about how obvious it is. — I referenced www.NoGayMarriage.com, which proves the AFA is against gay marriage; the dictionary I sourced proves this is classified as discrimination. Why you still claim the dictionary is not a “wikiworthy” source is unknown to me; you are largely mistaken.

I could care less whether the article states that the AFA discriminates either in the text or the categories, but seeing no wikiworthy sources and only original research — I assure you, you are wrong to claim no “wikiworthy” sources and original research because neither are the case.

All your other references to “something advocates this, but that isn’t discrimination” are really pointless, as advocating something and discrimination are two entirely different things, but you can still be advocating discrimination. Please understand this simple concept. Thank you. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 02:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know a way to control someone who is clearly on a mission? For example, he cites an AFA web site he added that favors the Marriage Protection Act as his source for his conclusion that the AFA discriminates. That is silly! That would mean anyone who supports the Marriage Protection Act discriminates! That would mean the majority of the public nationwide discriminates! I think this kind of proves the case for discrimination is false. Someone please remove discrimination as a category, or else add it to all pages about groups that support the Marriage Protection Act. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 03:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know a way to control someone who is clearly on a mission? — Well, I have been trying to try to convince you top stop removing facts, but you don't seem to understand simple logic. I sure wished there was some way to make you stop. But, maybe your conservative values are clouding your ability to the see the facts? I don't know. Read Wikipedia:Resolving disputes instead of posting bold text "Someone please remove discrimination as a category," even if some pro-AFA person removes the category, I will revert it becausue the category is supported by reliable sources per WP:VER policy. Understand this please, this is very annoying.

That would mean anyone who supports the Marriage Protection Act discriminates! That would mean the majority of the public nationwide discriminates! — Exactly on point! The Marriage Protection Act has failed twice, while Republicans held majority in Congress, because it is discrimination and only the far right religious people from the hick states voted for it. Yes, many people are discriminating across the United States. It is similar like when African-Americans were denied equal rights and the majority of people were in favor of it. I remember when some conservative person on Human rights and the United States was saying that denying homosexuals equal rights was not a human rights violation (as it isn't treating everyone equal) and he was proved wrong. This reminds me of that.

—Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 03:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Many African-Americans find such comparisons highly offensive. Their fight for civil rights was based on immutable physical characteristics, not behavior. Pollinator 16:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop it. Do not ascribe to me "conservative values" just because you are failing to follow wiki policies and I am trying to have people adhere to them. Further, I consider your statement that you will continue to revert the removal of your original research to be a threat, not against me personally, but against the entire wiki community and its policies. And your statement that many people nationally who support a proposed law are discriminators makes your argument regarding the AFA extremely tenuous, definitely not worthy of an encyclopedic article. Further, your view that skin color equates to choice of sexual partner is, as usual, your view, not to be inserted into wiki articles, and as this informs your view of the AFA and its actions that you then insert into the main wiki page, your additions based thereon are POV and must be removed. HELP! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 04:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I’m not going to waste my time debating you, because you keep expressing ideas that aren't logical. You can’t even see what not allowing homosexuals to right to marry is discrimination against homosexuals. I can’t argue with someone who lacks common logic. Your are obviously one of those pro-denying homosexuals equal rights and believe the U.S. should ignore the Equal Protection Cause of the Fourteenth Amendment types, so it is useless debating you. I will revert if Category:Discrimination is removed, because that category is supported by a reliable source, the dictionary, per WP:VER policy, and any removal of it would be vandalism. End of dicussion. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 04:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This applies to censorship as well as discrimination.

Where does the American Heritage Dictionary mention the American Family Association as an example of discrimination? A quote from Wikipedia:No original research:

“the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related (Wikipedia’s emphasis) to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.”

Another quote from the same article:

“Articles should only contain verifiable content from reliable sources without further analysis.”

Is the dictionary definition of discrimination verifiable? Certainly. Is it relevant? Absolutely, but not here, because it is not directly related to the AFA. Feel free to use it in the Discrimination article. Your explanation as to how the AFA engages in discrimination delves into analysis, which is obviously not permitted. You can say that homosexual rights groups and others accuse the AFA of discrimination in the criticism section, but linking it to the discrimination category outside of the criticism section assumes that it is as truthful and not critical. Citadel18080 06:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, but not here, because it is not directly related to the AFA. Feel free to use it in the Discrimination article. — It is directed related to the AFA because the AFA discriminates and you don't understand what discrimination means, so the dictionary is very related, because it is needed to "prove" the AFA discriminates.
Your explanation as to how the AFA engages in discrimination delves into analysis, which is obviously not permitted. — Referencing the dictionary requires no analysis or interpretation. The AFA discriminates according to the definition of discrimination, no analysis necessary. There is a difference between reading a definition of a word to see if the word applies in a situation and analysis. The definition of discrimination does not vary on the interpretation of it, as it has a clearly stated meaning. The dictionary has been used in other wikipedia articles as a reference, as it is in accordance with WP:VER as being a reliable source.
linking it to the discrimination category outside of the criticism section assumes that it is as truthful and not critical. — It is truthful that the AFA discrimates, so it doesn't matter if this is assumed. Also, you can't put categories under a specific section and some pro-AFA people might view it not as criticism, as they are in favor of discrimination against homosexuals.
You are wrong to ignore the dictionary or claim it is not directly related to the subject at hand. Please stop this unconstructive behavior. Thank you. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 11:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Does my local government discriminate against nudists by not allowing them to walk around in public without clothes on? Perhaps it should also be added to the discrimination category. Citadel18080 15:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, your local government discriminates against naturalists/nudists by not allowing them to freely express themselves, but I would not consider this as severe of discrimination as denying a group (homosexuals) a certain right (like the right to marriage), which is a human rights issue because it is in violation equal treatment, when there is no human rights issues regarding nudity (however, some may argue nudity falls under freedom of expression as a human right, but I think it is a weak connection). —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 16:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"I would not consider this as severe of discrimination..." That is your opinion. Your opinion is not valid on Wikipedia. That is the point I've been trying to make for days. "It is a violation of equal treatment" - What equal treatment are you referring to? You are certainly not speaking of the Constitution, because there has yet to be a definitive interpretation of its coverage of homosexuality? Remember, no analysis. Unless you are a Supreme Court justice, I don't want to know what you think the Constitution does and does not cover. Citadel18080 18:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"I would not consider this as severe of discrimination..." That is your opinion. Your opinion is not valid on Wikipedia. — I am aware Wikipedia is not a place to voice my opinion, but this is a talk page and you asked me about nudity. It is my opinion that not allowing nudes in public is not as severe as discrimination as denying homosexuals the right to marriage, but it is a fact that both are considered discrimination. I am confused as why you tell me to keep my opinion about nudes off the article when I have no intention to reference anything about nudity on this article, as nudity is not relevant to the AFA. You were the one who asked about nudity and if it is discrimination, that is the only reason I talking about it.
You are certainly not speaking of the Constitution, because there has yet to be a definitive interpretation of its coverage of homosexuality? — What is your question? In 1996, Hawaii ruled denying homosexuals the right to marriage is in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and ruled homosexuals have the constitutional right to marriage; this was later overridden by the Republican controlled Congress when they passed the Defense of Marriage Act. I don't want to debate same-sex marriage constitutionality, as other judges have ruled different in different cases and there is much debate about the topic. This is not the place for that debate. Lets keep this discussion about discrimination.
Unless you are a Supreme Court justice, I don't want to know what you think the Constitution does and does not cover. — I don't even slightly care what you do or don’t want to know.

—Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 19:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make with the nudity example was that assigning varying levels of discrimination to different groups of people constitutes bias. I don't know any nudists or nudist advocates, but I'm sure they would think that their form of discrimination is every bit as relevant as that of homosexual advocates. Sorry if you didn't understand that. I'm also not going to debate you about what is lawful or constitutional. The whether homosexuality is indeed something that can be discriminated against is ongoidebate overng. Advocating either side of the homosexual debate also constitutes bias. You asked, "What is your question?" Please refer to the question prior to it, of which it is a continutaion. Finally, with regards to posting your opinions on a talk page: whether you like it or not, you're opinions on political issues/people are taken by other users as the basis for whatever changes you advocate for this article, which is why I keep my opinions out of my posts unless someone specifically inquires about them. Citadel18080 21:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make with the nudity example was that assigning varying levels of discrimination to different groups of people constitutes bias. — Why were you trying to make such a point when there is no assigning of any type of level or ranking of discrimination in listing this category? This bias you say I have beacuse I think denying equal right is more important than denying nudity has nothing to do with the article, as this 'bias' is not stated on the article.

Advocating either side of the homosexual debate also constitutes bias ... with regards to posting your opinions on a talk page: whether you like it or not, you're opinions on political issues/people are taken by other users as the basis for whatever changes you advocate for this article. — I don't state my bias when I am editing. I don't use the talk page as a general dicussion of the topic. I try to hide nothing about my views, I have no reason to. I don't care what other editors think and I will not stop. End of dicussion. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 04:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to the bottom of the talk page for a possible compromise on all 3 category debates. Citadel18080 01:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Anti Gay

Please stop removing:

Organizations critical of AMA, such as Human Rights Campaign,[2] GLAAD,[3] and Southern Voice,[4] have labeled the AFA as an "anti-gay" group - from the introduction
Southern Poverty Law Center has stated one of AFA's goals is to "help drive the religious right's anti-gay crusade"[6] - from the Goals section.

These statements are not POV, as defined by Wikipedia policy. Just because this description is from human rights groups and pro gay equality groups does not mean they should not be referenced. Without these references, there is no mention of the AMA being anti-gay, but rather just says the AFA "promotes conservative Christian values," which is a vague description. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 17:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

If it belongs in the article, it belongs in the criticism section, not the description. Your inability to comprehend this reveals your POV. The fact that a critical group (with its own agenda) defines them as "anti-gay" does not make it a fact. With the exception of a few on the lunatic fringe ("God hate's fags"), conservative Christians values strongly affirm that they are PRO-homosexual (and I'll stick with the scientific term), while being against the "homosexual agenda." It's a big diference. Do your research, Christopher. It is extremely biased to define an oranization by the definition given by the critics, while ignoring the group's own definition of itself. This same bias is very commonly expressed on Wikipedia whenever the topic of family values comes up, and I wish I had time to work on better neutrality across the board here. This is just one example. Pollinator 17:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

"If it belongs in the article, it belongs in the criticism section, not the description" - If one of their goals is to be against gays, then it should be noted in the goals section. A large part of their activites are anti-gay, so I noted it in the introduction; however, if you want it the criticism, then you should move it there, rather than removing it off the article entirely.

"conservative Christians values strongly affirm that they are PRO-homosexual" - The AFA does not want homosexuals to have equal rights. The AFA is opposed to: extending hate crime laws to homosexuals, same-sex marriage, same-sex civil unions, same-sex adoption, gay clubs in school, and such. Are you claiming an organization that believes homosexuals should be second-class citizens and not have the same rights as heterosexuals are pro-homosexual?

"It is extremely biased to define an oranization by the definition given by the critics, while ignoring the group's own definition of itself." - If you want to insert the group's own definitation of it being pro-gay or anti-gay, then do that, but don't remove any view by any "critic" just because you believe it is POV, when in fact, it is not in any violation of WP:NPOV policy. Your actions are the extremely biased, as you remove well-sourced information, which is not in violation of any Wikipedia policy and is not quote mining like you claim.

—Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 19:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Would you honestly tell me that it would be completely within Wikipedia policy to write this as the introductory sentence to the Disney article, "Walt Disney Co. is a global media corporation. Groups such as the American Family Association oppose Disney for its acquisition of Miramax and its support of homosexuals."? Like Pollinator said, the views of critical groups belong in the "Criticism" section. Thank you for moving them there, and please no one put them anywhere else. Citadel18080 02:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Walt Disney is a horrible comparison. One of AFA's main goals is to deny homosexual equal rights and to convert homosexuals into heterosexuals; however, Walt Disney Co. does not have any such goal. I was referencing 'anti-gay' in the introduction because it is a main part of AFA’s ideology; I was not pointing out the organization was 'anti-gay' to criticize, I just wanted a point out a fact they discriminate against gays, because it is not referenced in the introduction. However, it seems because it has the word 'anti' in it, that some people believes this should go under criticism, so I moved it. Nonetheless, your Disney comparison of inserting criticism under Disney’s introduction is a horrible comparison and has no relevance because that criticism does not explain one of Disney’s main goals; unlike 'anti-gay', which explains what type of organization the AFA is. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 15:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What if I took the AFA's viewpoint and said that by sponsoring "Gay Days," Disney was discriminating against Christians and supporters of the traditional family? Maybe promoting a homosexual agenda is not Disney's main goal, but they haven't stopped doing it in spite of protests from the AFA and others, which leads me to believe its high on their list of goals. Likewise, the AFA is not predominantly an "anti-gay" organization, but has many other aims. Anyway, the matter has been settled. Citadel18080 23:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"the AFA is not predominantly an 'anti-gay' organization, but has many other aims" I am well aware the AFA are not predominantly concerned with gay issues, but it is a large part of what they are about. Look at how many boycotts were because of something gay related, or how much crap they have on their web site about gays, or how many propositions and bills that restrict gay rights the AFA has sponsored and/or poured money into. The AFA devotes a lot of resources into gay related issues and I think that deserves a mention in the introduction or goals; however which way it is said. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 23:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I wrote the goals section as a summary of the "Who is AFA?" section on their about us site, which predominantly focuses on its media efforts, but now that I look at it, it doesn't really specify any "goals," nor can I find any mention of specific aims on their website. Given the nature of the topic, perhaps we should rename or remove this section to avoid having editors infer the AFA's goals? Citadel18080 15:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Homophobia category

Pollinator, please do not remove Category:Homophobia. Your edit summary said this category is POV. If you believe that, then you should dicuss this category's deletion at WP:CFD—not remove it from this article. Homophobia is "..the discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals" and AFA is in favor of discrimination against homosexuality by advocating denying homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals; therefore, AFA should be under this category. Having this category is in no away aginst WP:NPOV. Please stop removing things by claiming they are POV, when there is no policy violation. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 19:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the biggest revert war right now is over what categories the AFA should be included in. I personally disagree with keeping the AFA in the "homophobia" category. The following is from the AFA's website:

"Does AFA Hate Homosexuals? Absolutely Not! The same Holy Bible that calls us to reject sin, calls us to love our neighbor. It is that love that motivates us to expose the misrepresentation of the radical homosexual agenda and stop its spread though our culture. AFA has sponsored several events reaching out to homosexuals and letting them know there is love and healing at the Cross of Christ." [11]

To include the AFA in the "Homophobia" category, someone is going to have to produce evidence that the AFA deliberately misleads its members and the general public, because that is the insinuation by including it in that category.Citadel18080 02:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Homophobia is a pejorative that, like all pejoratives, gets trotted out for use when one's case is weak. That seems to be the reason for the sudden addition of this category. There's no case made for its addition here other than the blanket assertion that isn't NPOV, and a rather thin arguement that talks about denying homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals. That's very weak. The highest court in New York recently affirmed that no rights of homosexuals are being denied. Other courts have done the same. To put this issue in a context of "rights" is a bias, because it totally accepts the homosexual position that it is a matter of rights. Not only courts, but the public has also indicated in almost every vote on same sex marriage that there are no rights being violated. In the USA, homosexuals have the same rights as anyone else. That is of course historic rights, not novel rights that have recently been invented. That is how it stands at present. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which should neutrally report on the facts. Its purpose is not promoting social crusades. This page is about the American Family Association, and it should accurately and neutrally report on that. Criticisms belong in the criticisms section, but should not overbalance the article, and certainly must not frame the article entirely within the critics' frame of reference. And it should avoid puerile epithets (like homophobia), which are only inflammatory and do not enlighten at all. Pollinator 04:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The AFA called for a boycott of Ford for donating money to pro gay-marriage groups. If a group called for a boycott of a company for donating money to a Christian church, would you consider them anti-Christian? Orpheus 09:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Err, a long post to point out flase and incorrect information stated above:

"I personally disagree with keeping the AFA in the 'homophobia' category. The following is from the AFA's website:" — Of course you disagree, that is your agenda (you can't even see the facts). You quote the AFA web site, which says "Does AFA Hate Homosexuals? Absolutely Not!...", but anti-gay does not mean the AFA hates gays. Quoting about if the AFA hates gays is not relevant. From what I understand of this these radical Christians, is that they believe god loves everyone, but wants those who aren't Christian to convert to get into heaven, or something similar to that. Anti-gay does not mean the organization “hates” homosexuals; I don’t think anyone will argue that. But, anti-gay does mean they discriminate against gays; AFA is opposed to homosexuals having equal rights, such as the right to marriage, right to marriage-like rights via civil unions, right to adoption, right to be protected by anti-discrimination laws, and other such rights.

"To include the AFA in the "Homophobia" category, someone is going to have to produce evidence that the AFA deliberately misleads its members and the general public, because that is the insinuation by including it in that category" — Homophobia and "the AFA deliberately misleads its members and the general public," are two completely different things. To prove homophobia, one only has to prove the AFA is against gays having equal rights (discrimination), which is so easily proved, it is a joke people are actually contesting this. To prove an organization is homophobic, does not mean they have to "deliberately misleads its members..."

"Homophobia is a pejorative that, like all pejoratives, gets trotted out for use when one's case is weak." — Again, homophobia means to discriminate against homosexuals, which the AFA clearly does. This is not a “weak” connect, but rather a direct connection, which clearly states, by the definition of the dictionary, that AFA is homophobic.

"There's no case made for its addition here other than the blanket assertion that isn't NPOV" — Stating a fact, that the AFA discriminates against homosexuals by advocating denying homosexuals the right to be treated equal under the law as according to the 14th amendment, the right to adoption, the right to marriage, the right to marriage like benefits via civil unions is not against WP:NPOV.

"The highest court in New York recently affirmed that no rights of homosexuals are being denied. Other courts have done the same. To put this issue in a context of "rights" is a bias, because it totally accepts the homosexual position that it is a matter of rights. Not only courts, but the public has also indicated in almost every vote on same sex marriage that there are no rights being violated." — I am well-aware of New York (as well as Washington) in their current ruling re: same-sex marriage; however, these court cases make no findings if rights were or were not being violated, they were largely focused on the formation of the family and raising children. The New York court case also ruled homosexuals should not be banned from adopting, something the AFA is against. You claim other courts have done the same is really strange, as in 1996 Hawaii ruled same-sex marriage is a constitutional right and in 2004 Massachusetts ruled same-sex marriage unconstitutional, as the judge stated homosexuals were being treated as second-class citizens, which is against Massachusetts’ constitution. You claim the public “has also indicated in almost every vote on same sex marriage that there are no rights being violated,” but in actuality, people in 25+ hick states enacted propositions, which banned homosexual marriage or civil unions and just because a large percentage of religious people believe homosexuals should not have the same rights as heterosexuals and ban them from marriage, does not mean homosexuals are not being denied rights. According to your logic, then in the south, during the slave years, African Americans were not having their rights denied because voters allowed it; oh course, this logic makes no sense and makes you seem extremly biased using this logical, which isn't even logical. Laws and rights are two different things, do you not understand this simple concept?

On the legal side, courts have ruled on both sides of the issue. I gave just one of several where courts ruled that no rights were being violated. Therefore to put this in a context of rights being denied is one-sided POV and is trying to use Wikipedia to advocate a cause.

Is anyone keeping homosexuals as slaves? If not, that avenue of discussion is irrelevant. Look, this talk page is to try to make this article more encyclopedic, not to argue the social policies. I am clearly pointing out that you are trying to manipulate the article into an advocacy for a cause. No matter how passionately you believe in it, this is a neutral (or should be) venue and you need to seek other venues, if you wish to promote a cause. Pollinator 16:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, courts have rules on both sides of the issues, so debating the courts is pointless. Laws and rights are also two different things, so there is no reason to debate laws or court rulings. What does that leave? The dictionary… "Rights," "censorship," "homophobia," and "discrimination, " all, according to the dictionary, are properly used in this article in my edits. I am trying to make this article more encyclopedic by stating facts. I have no "cause," I just believe the facts should be presented, like how if by definition, the AFA is homophonic and is also discriminatory, then it should be noted. On the contrary, you are trying to manipulate this article by removing facts. I believe this article should be neutral, but you removing facts and your complete refusal to recognize the actual definition of words, as stated by dictionaries, is not allowing this article to become more neutral. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 17:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"In the USA, homosexuals have the same rights as anyone else" — Yet another false statement. Unlike the United States, Belgium, Canada, Netherlands, Spain, and South Africa have legalized same-sex marriage. Unlike the United States, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Greenland, Iceland, France, Germany, Portugal, Finland, Luxembourg, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Andorra, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Switzerland, Colombia recognize same-sex civil unions nationwide.

"The AFA called for a boycott of Ford for donating money to pro gay-marriage groups. If a group called for a boycott of a company for donating money to a Christian church, would you consider them anti-Christian?" — Ford was also trying to advertise to homosexuals (like in gay magazines), extended marriage-like benefits to same-sex couples, and actively recruited gay employees. If a group called for a boycott to a company for donating money to Christian churches, gave Christian same rights as everyone else (which they already have, but this is just an example), and actively recruited Christians, than the group boycotting may be considered anti-Christian. However, just because AFA boycotts organizations is not the main reason why they are anti-gay. They are anti-gay because they believe in denying homosexuals same rights as heterosexuals, and support laws banning homosexuals from equal rights, as explained before. This example is pointless.

—Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 16:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Christopher, I've tried to be patient and keep my own views out of this discussion for the sake of NPOV, but you have not done the same. Referring to "radical Christians", "Hick-states" and the "crap" on the AFA website clearly shows a bias on your part. Likewise, you cannot create a separate "Homophobic Organizations" category and lump the AFA in with the KKK (see POV Forks, nor can you bypass discussion by calling your viewpoint a fact. I'm removing the category link. Please exhibit patience by not reverting this edit until discussion has concluded, as I requested long ago, and as is perfectly compliant with Wikipedia policy. Citadel18080 02:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Come on. You're trying to remove any material critical of the AFA from this article. That's not NPOV, it's clearly favouring one side. I'm trying to assume good faith here but it seems difficult when you're playing semantic games (for example "It may be true, but it's not technically criticism or controversy so out it goes"). We should be trying to make this article an accurate, factual descriptions of: a) the history of the AFA, b) the positions the AFA takes and has taken, and c) society's reaction to those position. Some people applaud their positions, some people find them repugnant - where are you at in that spectrum, Citadel18080? You're accusing others of bias - tell us your own, then we can make informed decisions. Orpheus 02:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question, I am a conservative Christian. Now on to the rest...

Have you read all of my posts? Any time I remove material from this article, I provide a detailed explanation citing Wikipedia policy. I have repeatedly stated that I have no objection to critical material provided that it is sourced, nor have I deleted any material that has been reinstated with citations that directly refer to the AFA. Since this article is about such a disputed organization, I don't think that it is unreasonable to ask this in order to avoid POV. For the same reason, any categories the article is added to are going to be endlessly debated on this page, with the links on the article coming and going as editors representing either side come and go. In my opinion, categorizing this article in anything other than definitive categories such as "conservative organizations" is POV. Besides most organizations belonging to the "Christian" and "conservative" categories will pretty much always have the same viewpoints on homosexuals, pornography, politics, etc. That is common knowledge. As for the topic at hand, Homophobia, Christopher clearly violated the Content Forking policy referenced above by creating a separate category just for the AFA, the Ku Klux Klan, and a few other organizations. Can you seriously tell me that isn't POV? Citadel18080 03:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"Referring to 'radical Christians', 'Hick-states' and the 'crap' on the AFA website clearly shows a bias on your part." – What is your point? I think the AFA is a crazy organization. I disagree with most of their stances and issues, but I try not to let that reflect in my editing. One does not have to be neutral on the subjects they edit or contribute to. Most editors are opinionated, but that does not matter as long as they don't let their opinions reflect in their editing. Do you understand this? Because I am confused why you point out that I am not a support of the AFA. I don't try to hide it; I would be embarrassed to show support for such an organization. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 03:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I added my political/religous viewpoints as a direct response to Orpheus' question. Do I agree with the AFA? Yes. What I do not do is express my opinion of the AFA on a regular basis throughout this article, because my opinion is not what this article's about. The top of every Wikipedia talk page states, "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the American Family Association article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." By expressing you're opinions, you're diverting the discussion away from the topic at hand. Citadel18080 03:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"Hick states" instead of "states in the south and mid-west, which are composed of under educated and unsophisticated people" is just a shorter way of saying something the same thing. “Crap” on their web site instead of “articles regarding” is just a shorter way of saying something. “Radical Christian” is what they are. I know some people who are Christian, but they don’t have near as extreme views as the AFA; they are not that radical. Radical is a description of AFA (although I’m not going to put that in the article). I am not generally discussing the topic. I am not in violation of talk page guidelines. I use words to say things to make them shorter because I don’t feel a need to be NPOV on talk pages. Please quit falsely assuming me of violations. Thanks. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 04:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The assertion of bias is true. One good test of bias, as always, is to reverse the protagonists. How would you respond to being called "hick" and your work labelled "crap"? They are pejoratives and they reveal your inherent bias. (None so blind as those who will not see.) The use of such pejoratives by a frequent editor, even on the talk page, poisons the process of making an NPOV article. Pollinator 16:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The assertion of bias is true. — Of course it is true I am opposed to the AFA, just like it is true some people here are in favor of the AFA.

How would you respond to being called "hick" and your work labelled "crap"? They are pejoratives and they reveal your inherent bias. The use of such pejoratives by a frequent editor, even on the talk page, poisons the process of making an NPOV article. — There are not two l’s in labeled. Also, it doesn't matter how I would feel. Once again, a talk page does not have to be NPOV. You claim this poisons the article, but it does no such thing, because if it did, there would be policy regarding this. I can express my opinions about such and it has nothing to do with the article because I am not using "hick" and "crap" in the article. Please don't falsely accuse me of poising the article. Thank you.

—Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 19:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to the bottom of the talk page for a possible compromise on all 3 category debates. Citadel18080 01:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

"Activism" Rewrite and "Controversy" Name change

Thank you Pollinator for tagging the article. We need to discuss exactly what to keep in the "Activism" section, as it currently is a random assortment of AFA activities over the last 10 years. Some of the text plagarized from the Carpetbagger "nutcase" blog has even been reverted. If we want to keep everything, we should just make a seperate page listing boycotts and activism, but we could probably just condense it to a few major events. Also, one of the things Pollinator said was that criticism should be defined as such, so I suggest we go ahead and rename the "Controversy" section as Orpheus suggested above, possibly to "Criticism". Of course, any and all incidents in this section must be sourced and contain suitable counterarguments. I would also like to permanently remove the Keith Ellison incident for the reasons I listed above in "Disputed Text". Anyone agree/disagree.Citadel18080 04:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 04:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree - Seems more appropriate. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 16:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! Citadel18080 01:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Also agree that we should not create a separate boycott and activism article. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 02:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Disagree on the Keith Ellison piece - see [12]. It seems very clear that the AFA's official position was to agree with Prager's articla and use it as a fundraising motivator. Orpheus 14:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is the AFA's viewpoint, but to my knowledge it was never criticized. Dennis Prager also is not affiliated with the AFA, nor is the AFA affiliated with his site, Townhall.com. If you can find a sourced criticism of the AFA's viewpoint, feel free to bring the topic up again. We just need to be careful that the "Criticism" section doesn't become too crowded.Citadel18080 23:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Your concern should not be if the criticism section gets too large, because if it does get too large, a separate article can be made and criticism can be summarized. Your concern should be if the statement belongs on the criticism section or not; no other factor; at least IMO. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 00:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine. I've re-added it to the Activism section. Orpheus 03:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I posted this earlier. Its still relevant.

By analyzing the AFA's POV from the perspective of one legal analyist (Eugene Volokh), the author violates Wikipedia:No original research, which gives this example paragraph:

Since Volokth had no direct conflict with the AFA, using him as a resource violates the above policy.

I'm not advocating the removal of this piece, but I am going to remove references that violate said policy.Citadel18080 03:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Your edit, link — This removal of this information takes away important information to the reader. If the AFA is supporting something that is against the constitution, IMO, it should be noted. Please don't remove sourced information if it is not in violation of wiki policy, unless you discuss it first and have consensus. Controversial edits ideally should be handled this way. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 04:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The debate over the literality of the Constitution has been going on for centuries, and was the first major difference between the political parties. Unless Volkoth referred directly to the AFA, his opinions do not belong here. As for consensus, why would anyone disagree? No one objected when I cited that policy three days ago, and you yourself agreed to the removal of the Ellison piece. Citadel18080 15:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible Compromise on Category Debate

I have a compromise to our little debate. According to Wikipedia's policy on Categories:

"Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. A list might be a better option."

How about using lists instead of categories? We'd have to keep this in mind from Wikipedia's policy on Lists:

"Avoid using the name of the list as a way to assert a certain POV. A "List of famous British people" asserts that the people in the list are famous. A better name could be "List of noted British people", or simpler "List of British people", as these will be listed only if they pass the Wikipedia:Notability test. Avoid using terms that are in dispute as the main descriptor for the list. For example, "List of pseudoscientists" may not be appropriate as the term itself is disputed. A better name in this case could be "List of people described as pseudoscientists"."

With all this in mind, I would be willing to allow the AFA to be put on a list entitled "List of Organizations Described as Advocating Censorship". The same can also be done for Discrimination and Homophobia. I hope this resolves our dispute. Citadel18080 01:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me, but I'll bet POV will invade even that. For example, if even a single wiki editor describes the AFA as advocating censorship, must it be included on such a list, even if it is totally false? Won't the same problems that infect the words as catagories similarly infect the words as including in lists? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 02:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

All entries on a "List of Organized described as..." will have to be sourced, but I doubt it is hard to find a source accusing the AFA of any of these things. If things get out of hand, we can always request dispute resolution and, if need be, arbitration, from Wikipedia. Citadel18080 02:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea. If something isn't true, it isn't true.

And it would certainly be used just as much as a category, for critics to group any organization they don't like, with lunatic fringe groups - a form of demonization. It's a propaganda device that's used on both poles in politics, but seems to only be used on one side in Wikipedia. Did anyone notice that this article is in "Category:Conservative organizations in the United States". Do you find any "Category:Liberal organizations in the United States"? Interesting. And if one were to start such a category, would it be a pretty hot topic? Pollinator 03:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe this is a bad idea. No need to remove the categories. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 03:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's a couple of references for the categories. Discrimination: The AFA advocates for prohibiting lesbians from having IVF (New York Times, December 17, 2006, Op-ed page, Frank Rich). Censorship: The AFA asked the FCC to prohibit the screening on broadcast television of Saving Private Ryan (Reuters, November 12, 2004, via New York Times, same date). Orpheus 06:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Orpheus, the massive debate on this page speaks for itself. I have never seen the likes of it on any Wikipedia page. Its not like we're arguing over whether or not to put the article on oranges into the fruit category; there is a definite controversy over whether the AFA should be included in these categories ("remember, self evident and uncontroversial") I offered the lists as a possible compromise, but one way or another, the categories have to come down. Here is the complete quote from Wikipedia:Categorization, Guideline 8:

"Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. A list might be a better option." Citadel18080 15:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do you object to the article being in those categories, just out of interest? I suspect that your issue is with the category name, not the company kept therein. Have a look at the articles in those categories - in my opinion, it is self-evident that the AFA belongs there. If the names bother you, rename the categories. They should stay in until consensus is reached though - perhaps mediation is called for. Orpheus 16:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to start this debate again. My primary reason for disputing the categories is becuae there is no balance, as there would be with text. If an article is in a category, it just is, without explanation. That is why Wikipedia policy doesn't allow articles to be placed in categories which aren't obvious and uncontroversial. Like I said, we're not arguing about putting grass in the plant category. The policy is extremely clear and is not consensus-based. Would you require consensus if an editor violated Wikipedia policy by inserting text from their own blog? Citadel18080 16:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That is why Wikipedia policy doesn't allow articles to be placed in categories which aren't obvious or uncontroversial ... The policy is extremely clear — That is a huge lie. The policy is not extremely clear because there is no policy. Wikipedia:Categorization is a guideline, not a policy. While some guidelines are reached by connsensus, others are not. Guidelines are recomendations; guidelines are not a set of rules or a policy. There are far too many guidelines and many users choose to ignore them or parts of them, as they are somewhat controversial. This is why guidelines are always changing. Please stop calling guidelines policy, they are two completely different things. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 17:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

So, why exactly are those policy/guideline pages there, and who decides which ones are worth adhering to and which ones are worth ignoring? Also, how are we going to have consensus or compromise when you and Orpheus have yet to provide a reason as to why using lists instead of categories is a "bad idea"? IMO, this is a reasonable compromise, although I do see more POV disputes down the way. Furthermore, why do you keep adding the AFA back into those categories when the dispute has not been resolved? The standard procedure is to either remove disputed materials or move them to the talk page. Citadel18080 19:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines are there to guide people in the right direction; they are not rules or requirements and can be ignored. Policies must be followed at all times and should never be ignored. Do you not understand this?

Your claim I have not provided a reason for why it is a bad idea not to use lists is a lie, as I stated, "No need to remove the categories" as my reason.

You stated it is standard procedure to remove disputed materials from the article; however, this is another lie, as it is not standard procedure to do this. Standard procedure is to keep the article how is until the dispute is resolved, as long as there are no policy violations and you have horribly failed to prove any policy violation, but rather just claim having these categories somehow violates WP:NPOV and WP:OP. You have failed to quote any specific violation, expect for some far-out unrelated lie that using the dictionary as a source is “unpublished synthesis of published material,” which obviously it isn’t, as there is no 'synthesis' in using the dictionary definition of discriminatory, censorship, and homophobic as proof that the AFA is discriminatory, homophobic, and supports censorship. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 22:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Mann McKay keeps saying Citadel18080 is "lying." Clearly Citadel18080 is just trying to follow wiki policy. And there is other repeated behavior by Christopher Mann McKay in the nature of personal attacks against individuals and groups. Dear Wiki Elders, is there no way to control the constant personal attacks ongoing repeatedly by Christopher Mann McKay? Let alone his POV edits and Original Research, these personal attacks by Christopher Mann McKay cannot possibly be okay with the Wiki Elders. But I just don't know how to handle this, and even if I did, it would be my first time. I think real experience is needed here. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 22:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Mann McKay, I don't lie, and for the sake of civility request that you not call me a liar. Citadel18080 23:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I never said anyone a "lier". Also, LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, please don't use direct quotes and claim I said Citadel was "lying", when I did no such thing. I wonder why you are you misconstruing what I typed. I only said something is a lie. Like how Citadel was calling guidelines policy and caiming using the dictionary requires synthesis are lies. I did not call anyone a lier or say someone was lying, but rather I was just pointinting out what is not true aka a lie. In the future I will not use the word "lie," since it bothers you. Rather, I will use "not the truth." —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 23:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

"Your claim ... is a lie...." is just one example. Just one. Oh, I'm just feeding the troll. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 00:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Please, no name calling here. I don't fell I am a 'troll' but you are entitled to your opinion; however, this talk page is not about complaining about me or calling me a troll—it is for improving the article.

No one asked for an example. I explained examples of me saying something is a lie in my previous comment. Please stop voicing your opinions about me on this talk page; this is not the place. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 20:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Stating that WP:CAT was a policy instead of a guideline was not a lie, but an unintentional error. Citadel18080 21:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Block recommendation

Vandalism by Christopher Mann McKay continues unabated - a block should be considered

Christopher Mann McKay just ignored policy yet again on the main page. His violation of policy and unwillingness get off his soapbox, let alone his personal attacks, have reached the point, timewise and seriousnesswise, where his actions should be considered just plain vandalism. I am not even going to revert his vandalism now because he will just continue to vandalize the page, just as he has threatened to do, reiterated the threat, and carried out the threat. Consideration should be given to making a case for the blocking of Christopher Mann McKay who continually fails to be guided by wiki policies and procedures. It has become impossible to apply wiki standards to the main page as Christopher Mann McKay has essentially hijacked it for use as his own personal soapbox. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 04:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Your comments are very funny, but this isn't the place for them. Get an administer involved if you want me blocked instead of filling up this talk page with your criticism of my editing. This discussion page is for improving the article. Regarding my edit, you have failed to quote any policy violation, but just claim it must be POV or OR. Please be more specific to what policy you are claiming is in violation here. Thank you. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 04:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I and others have repeatedly cited (in Talk or in History) specific policy to you again and again. Don't act like you haven't heard it before. You just plain don't care--that's part of being on a soapbox. Your few edits that don't violate policy are fine. Your edits that do violate policy must be removed -- it is not criticism to remove edits in violation of policy and to specify the specific policy being violated. No one can help it if repeated requests for wikiworthy sources, a policy requirement, are repeatedly evaded by you. Your vandalism is only necessitated because, as has become apparent, you have not yet found wikiworthy sources for the original research you continue to add to this page, even as we speak. A block needs to be at least raised here because of your repeated, long term, threatened, and carried out efforts to continue to vandalize this page, to thumb your nose at wiki policy and your fellow editors. You bring this on yourself by caring not one whit about wiki policy. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 05:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It's only your opinion that there's no "wikiworthy" (by which I assume you mean reliable) sources provided. There's plenty of sources quoted both in the talk page and the article that support the material, there, and even some of what was removed (the Volokh article for instance, which is an entirely justifiable source). You appear to be defining "wikiworthy" as "agrees with you". Orpheus 05:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, there has been no quote or reference any actual violation of the WP:NPOV or WP:OC policies, you just claim they have been violated, but you don't quote anything from one of the policy articles (expect that synthesis argument which does not apply here). I don't why you are refusing to be specific about which violation you are claiming here. Policy articles are written so you will know what is and is not in violation of NPOV or OR. You can't simply claim something is in violation of NPOV without being specific as to what it is violating. Just find what it is in violation and copy and paste it into this article, because I have read both policies multiple times and there is nothing stating my recent edits are wrong. The claims of guideline violations are not relevant because it is not mandatory guidelines are followed, as they are there to guide. Again, block issues have to do with admins, please stop flooding this talk page with your complaints about me.—Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 05:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No, Orpheus, and you know better. Remember "Orpheus cites http://www.afa.net/activism/FCCComplaint.asp as proof of the advocacy of censorship" and how I specified in numbered paragraphs exactly why that source was of no encyclopedic value in this article? Remember others agreed with me? Well go back and take a look. And that's just one instance. People would be bored if I listed them all. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 06:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

There's also the New York Times references I quoted above, which directly state that the AFA advocates censorship and discrimination, even using those words. Is that "wikiworthy" enough for you? Orpheus 13:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No. You provided no links. I have no way to evaluate the articles if I cannot find them. And Google didn't help me. Please produce links and drop the nonwiki tone. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 13:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The Internet, not even Google, is not the sum total of human knowledge. I can't give you links because the articles are too old to be freely available. If you search through the New York Times archives using the information I've supplied you'll find the articles. Orpheus 13:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, that proves what I and others have been saying. And the NYT has archives with beginning paragraphs to decide if entire articles should be bought. Can you at least provide that? I didn't even understand what those initials in the title meant. As it stands now, there is no way to tell anything about the articles you are suggesting, and the one reference that could be found online did not say what you said it said. Know that people are not against adding information if it is true, but no one can tell if it's true and in at least one case it was not true. Your credibility will be greatly enhanced if you can only back up your words with wikiworthy sources.

What initials? IVF? Stands for "in vitro fertilisation". What reference in particular didn't say what I said it did? Orpheus 15:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

And based on this I will pull down those cats again as it is again obvious the cats are POV and/or OR without wikiworthy sources. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 15:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You've got references. If you can't be bothered looking them up in the library like I did then I fail to see how you can say they're not "wikiworthy" (really - that's a stupid term). Orpheus 15:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You've got some nerve. You add POV and OR. Then you repeatedly violate wiki policy and behaviors. When pressed repeatedly by multiple editors you finally produce flimsy evidence. The evidence cannot be found and you do not provide it. Then you ridicule me because I "can't be bothered" to do your work for you? Really you have strayed outside the boundaries of how wiki editors are supposed to treat each other, and I do not appreciate it. I'll ask you, again, to stop it.

Now who's got nerve. I give you sources. You reject them because I haven't presented them to you on a silver platter. As for "pressed repeatedly by multiple editors" and "finally produce", some of us have jobs and time constraints that prevent us spending every minute attempting to comply with your warped view of "wikiworthiness". And given that the title of this section is a call for a block against another editor who appears to be trying to jump through the arbitrary hoops you've set, I would be a bit careful with the comments about how to treat each other if I were you. Orpheus 16:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

As to flimsy evidence, here is a direct copy from above:

Orpheus cites http://www.afa.net/activism/FCCComplaint.asp as proof of the advocacy of censorship.

Advocacy of censorship, even if it were true, and no wikiworthy sources proving it is true have yet been asserted, is not the same as censorship;

There are plenty of sources that describe what the AFA advocates as censorship. I went down to the library to find sources that specifically used the word "censorship". A New York Times article is surely a reliable source. I'm not sure what would qualify as "wikiworthy" in your eyes - perhaps you can suggest something? Orpheus 16:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Making a legitimate request to the FCC based on indecency is not censorship and it is not the advoccy of censorship, rather it is exercising your American rights to seek redress from the government in a manner specifically provided by the government as a means of seeking redress, and any removal of material based thereon is only in complaince with existing FCC rules and regulations. One would have to argue that the FCC is censorious to also make the claim that the AFA is also censorious for seeking redress in accordance with FCC rules;

Yes, it is censorship. It is a government agency making a restriction on what can be broadcast. That is censorship. The AFA asked for it. That is advocating censorship. The FCC *is* censorious. It engages in censorship. The AFA lobbies for the FCC to censor more. That's advocating censorship. I don't know how else you can see a restriction on speech by the government. Orpheus 16:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Claiming that seeking redress from the government in the proper manner is censorship, combined with the many, many people making such claims in this particular instance (Jackson's Super Bowl "wardrobe malfunction"), does not mean all those people are all censors, and to say so really weakens the argument in favor of the claim that the AFA is practicing censorship to almost nil.

I'm not saying they're all censors. They all are, however, advocating censorship. I have never said the AFA practises censorship. It can't, it's not a government agency. It can lobby for it and advocate it, and it can apply commercial pressure through boycotts and so on which could arguably be called censorship under a looser definition of the term (I'm not making that argument - I agree with you that it's POV). Orpheus 16:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't have references -- you have only produced POV and OR. Then you blame others for not believing your POV and OR. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 16:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I ask again - have you looked at the censorship category? The majority of links there are not to government organisations that censor directly - they are to organisations or individuals that lobby for or against censorship. Orpheus 16:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's another one: [13]. Bottom of the first page if you don't want to read that far down. I renamed the section too, the edit summaries were getting ridiculous. Orpheus 16:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's some more: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. Orpheus 16:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Phew! It'll take a while for me to digess these. I'll get back to you much, much later! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 17:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Temporary Halt to Discussion

Folks, we're not getting anywhere. Even if this article goes into mediation or arbitration, it would take weeks or months to resolve it, and I doubt we'd get anywhere with discussion in that period of time. Therefore, I propose that we agree on a temporary solution to the debate which none of us will revert for a period of one month. Doing so will give the Request for Comment time to garner a few responses. If, in a month, we still don't agree, we can extend the agreement indefinitely to allow for mediation or arbitration. Here is my proposal for a temporary solution:

Remove the categories (remember, this isn't the permanent version)
Add a new bullet point in the "Criticism" section stating, "Newspapers and other publications have described the AFA as advocating homophobia, censorship, and discrimination." Orpheus, I haven't read all of your sources, but I expect that they would make good citations here.

If you agree to the one month "cease-edit", please say so. Citadel18080 18:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

SO --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 19:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I am against these recommendations. We need to keep it as it is because there is no policy violation in having the categories. It is not only the news media that claim the AFA supports these things; it is a fact. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 19:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm in favour of keeping the article the way it was before this edit war was sparked off. In summary, Censorship and Discrimination in, Homophobia out. That version of the article stood for many months - I think it's fair to leave it at that while we reflect. Orpheus 20:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Something that's wrong in an article is wrong whether or not it's been around for many months. Length of time does not immunize false information. Your suggestion that it does is further evidence of your efforts to ensure the page reflects your personal views instead of the truth. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 22:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting it be left that way forever, merely that if you want to have a "one month truce" then the original, pre-edit war version of the article would be the most appropriate to leave in place during that time. Orpheus 05:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with this, as I believe Category:Homophobia should be on this article, as there is no policy violation is having this. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 05:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see the result of the CfD before I commit to agreeing with that, and in any case until consensus is reached I stick to the principle that the categories should remain as they have been. Orpheus 07:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The CfD overwhelming was a keep. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 18#Category:Homophobia. Are you still opposed to not including this category? If so, why? —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 15:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The arguments given in the CfD debate are persuasive, and if there's at least one or two reliable sources labelling the AFA as homophobic, then I support including it in that category. Before the cries of "pejorative name" come up - read the CfD discussion, and realise that it's a description, not an accusation. Some people are proud to be homophobic and as a libertarian I say more power to them. Orpheus 16:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Mann McKay, I didn't post this section to rehash the debate. You've made your position quite clear. Orpheus, I don't see consensus being reached anytime soon. That is why I want to suspend editing/debating the category topic for a month. I can't remember the exact policy/guideline at the moment, but I do remember Wikipedia recommending that disputed text be moved to the talk page. Since we obviously can't move categories, I beleive that moving homophobia, dsicrimination, and censorship to the criticism section is entirely approriate as a temporary solution. This way, the disputed material remains on the page, but not in the categories. To use a cliche, everybody wins. Citadel18080 07:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The references section needs fixing

The References section needs fixing. Just look at it. I'm talking about its appearance from a visual point of view, not factual. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 02:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Not just visual... Having an expanded reference section helps the reader know where the cited information is comming from without clicking on every link. It also helps in finding links via Internet Archieve if the link becomes broken. I finished expanding the reference tags, so it should be good now. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 19:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed link

Article covering details of the AFA's campaign against homosexuality by the Southern Poverty Law Center was removed from "external links" - I'm including it here because it's a useful reference, but not a good candidate for "External Links" (which should be general in nature, as the edit summary suggested). It would make a good citation that the AFA supports controversial ex-gay programmes. Orpheus 04:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm also going to remove OneMillionDads.com from External Links because a link is already provided in the "Divisions and Operations" section. Citadel18080 18:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, how nice it is when we all work together. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 21:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The second reference is not wikiworthy and needs to be removed. In the first place, it's just plain wrong, referring to Wildman as a "Fundamentalist." He's a United Methodist minister, for goodness sake! If he were a Fundamentalist, the first thing he'd do is leave the denomination. Secondly, it's using a critic to provide the definition of the group - which is not neutral. Pollinator 23:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed the second referenced and replaced it with one from ACLU and one from AFA themselves. I included the one from ACLU if the AFA link goes dead in the future, which happens often on Wikipedia. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 01:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Pollinator: fundamentalist in colloquial usage doesn't necessarily match the strict denominational definition you're using. See the first section of Fundamentalist Christianity, or Fundie for a less charitable view. I'm happy to leave the term out of the article though. Orpheus 02:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Wojnarowicz v. American Family Association

I want to reference how the AFA's attempt to prevent the NEA from funding a controversial artist who focused on AIDS and homosexuality resulted in the AFA violating the New York Artists' Authorship Rights Act, but I don't know what section to put it under. Would it be considered criticism or controversy, or should I put it under activism, as the AFA violated this act by mailing out pamphlets out in support of restricting NEA funding to Wojnarowicz? Any ideas? Thanks. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 19:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

How did the AFA violate the act? Citadel18080 04:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/doc6.html lays it out pretty comprehensively. I'd put it under controversy, as it was an AFA action that was disputed and challenged. Orpheus 05:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. My only recommendation is that the conclusion of any case mentioned in the article be included. In the case above, one claim by Wojnarowicz was upheld and the other two dismissed. I recommend that the conclusion of American Family Association v. City and County of San Francisco also be mentioned. Unfortunately, I don't have time right now to make those additions myself. Citadel18080 06:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sometime in the next few days I will create a wikipedia article for American Family Association v. City and County of San Francisco, then a user can click on the case for more information. I'll also add a short sentence about the outcome of the case on this article. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 21:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Citadel18080 22:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

"Goals" Section

I've found a web page where the AFA lists their mission statement, philosophical statement, and the specific areas in which they focus their advocacy. I would like to replace the text in the goals section with a summary of this material in order to provide the most accurate description of the AFA's point of view. Here is my proposed replacement text:

The AFA believes that the Bible contains the absolute truth of God and is the authority to which all men are divinely judged. "...a culture based on biblical truth best serves the well-being of the country, in accordance with the vision of our founding fathers."

Mission Statement: "The American Family Association exists to motivate and equip citizens to change the culture to reflect Biblical truth."

The organization lists several areas in which it advocates its philosophy and mission statement:

Preservation of the Marriage and Family
Decency and Morality
Sanctity of Human Life
Stewardship
Media Integrity

Any thoughts? Citadel18080 00:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I suport expanding the Goals section with the information you referenced above; however, I don't think you should replace the text already in the article. The first sentence of the current goals section states, "...focuses on addressing the influence of media, including pornography, on those values" and the second sentence explains how goals are pursued. Both of these sentences I feel are important to have in this article. Also, I think we should try to avoid having information in bullet form, unless it is absolutely needed. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 01:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that's valuable information as well, but I agree with Christopher that it should complement what's there already rather than replace it. Personally, I think it would be a bit POV just to use the AFA as a source for that section - good to have a bit of balance. Orpheus 01:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, do we still need the NPOV tag? Orpheus 01:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I'm just honoring the 1 month rule. Those POV categories have got to go. There remain other problems. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 02:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The article in general needs a massive cleanup. With regard to using just the AFA in the "Goals" section, that was my point. When people read the "Goals" seciton of the AFA article, they expect to read what the AFA itself seeks to accomplish, not what we say it accomplishes. As for NPOV, as long as it is made clear that the material comes from the AFA website, there is no problem. I think that the text that is currently there would make an excellent intro to the "Activism and Viewpoints section, which itslef requires either cleanup or a seperate article. Citadel18080 17:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me expand what I just wrote. Since "Activism and Viewpoints", as it is now, is a jumbled mess with infinite room for expansion and little criteria regarding what should stay and what should go, I'd like to recommend that a seperate article or list be created detailing the AFA's activism efforts. The text currently in that section could organized and moved to the seperate article while the text currently in the "Goals" section could serve as a concise summary of "Activism and Viewpoints" in the main article. Citadel18080 18:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Category Dispute Tag

This tag seemed more relevant to our dispute, so I added it. I'm not sure whether to keep the NPOV tag as well. While the article as a whole looks better than it did a month ago, it still needs a lot of work to be considered encyclopedic and neutral. Citadel18080 03:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool tag! I agree. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 03:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello Citadel and Legitimate... I see some problems that I think we could smooth out with this article. The category problem is something that I see as quite pressing.Hal Cross 04:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

We are 2 weeks into a 1-month break from the category discussion, and a request for third-party comments has been posted for some time. The issue has been discussed to infinite length above and could possibly wind up in mediation or arbitration. Personally, I would like to see the 1-month period through before either step is pursued. Of course, the rest of the article is also in need of attention. What improvements would you suggest? Citadel18080 05:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, as a matter of fairness, for the remainder of the two weeks, the categories should be removed. Indeed that is consistent with policy, guidance, or practice anyway. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 01:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

What policy? That makes no sense at all. Orpheus 02:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well we all know there is a possible mediation going to happen. I guess thats obvious because the categories are probably going to be intermittently appearing an reappearing anyway. So just to clear up the article it'd be a good idea to ditch the tag and cats, and work on clearing the article up. If we focus on the neutrality is disputed tag, it would help focus the clearup. I think the neutrality is disputed is basically in the same issue as the tagging anyway. Regarding cleanup, we could do with having a lot more about what the AFA are about: Decency (from their viewpoint). Right now the article focuses far too much on what some people don't like them saying. Balance and a wider array of information is in order. Hal Cross 02:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree and don't think it would be a good idea to remove the categories. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 03:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Why did you put the homophobia category back in, after all this time? Citadel18080 03:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Because the AFA are homophobic and I see no good reason to keep it off. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 03:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

There's one good reason to keep it off: its neither self-evident nor uncontroversial. We spiral further towards arbitration... Citadel18080 04:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

So let's go to arbitration. I reiterate, by the way, that the problem people seem to have with the categories is related to the title of the category. The other articles in those categories are indisputably a good fit with the AFA, and if you can come up with a more appropriate name for the categories then have them renamed. Removing them from this article isn't the appropriate course of action. Remember - it's Category:Censorship, not Category:Organisations that censor. Orpheus 05:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Many would dispute that the Ku Klux Klan is a "good fit" with the AFA in Discrimination and Homophobia. As for Censorship, I will reiterate that the AFA has declared that they do not practice/advocate/endorse censorship. To state that they do is POV and produces controversy (which, by definition, is a disagreement on a subject). Citadel18080 07:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It's really quite irrelevant what the AFA declares on the subject - how does it go? By your deeds, not your words shall ye be known? The simple fact, amply supported by evidence, is that the AFA endorses government censorship whether they call it that or not. It's remarkably POV to blindly follow their own line on the matter - after all, they have a vested interest. If you want to put in the article that they explicitly deny the claim they endorse censorship, then I'm all for that as a balancing exercise. Regarding Discrimination, there's a wide spectrum of articles in that category, with the KKK at one end and Office romance at the other. It even includes Anti-Christian prejudice which the AFA claim they are trying to battle - they'd warrant inclusion on that criteria alone. Orpheus 07:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Frankly I couldn't give a rats arse about the cats or the tags. I'm sure there are going to be some queers who want to emphasize the cats, and there may be some bigots who want to queer bash. None of my business. What is in need of work here is to broaden the views and facts on the article because right now they seem to be focused on argumentative edits. I can see that the queers may want to keep those views narrow. Well, if I want to watch you jump, I'll just take the cats away again. In the meantime I'll be happier if I see some other editors work on including all facts and views and keeping them as broad as is encyclopedic. I'm just hoping I'm in the right place and this place does turn out to be an encyclopedia after all. Hal Cross 08:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could start off with a quick read of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. I agree that the article needs to be broadened, but in my opinion that means adding material rather than removing it. Large swathes were removed a while ago for (in some cases) fairly dubious reasons, it would be good to expand the article rather than repeat that. Orpheus 13:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hal Cross, what do you mean "some queers who want to emphasize the cats"? How can you put emhasis on a category? Also, what do you mean by "I can see that the queers may want to keep those views narrow"? Who are these "queers" you are refering to? Are you using queer to mean homosexual, or are you using queer to refer to editors who you view as strange? —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 17:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

If you don't know what queer means perhaps you should get a television set. They were invented a short time ago and it seems word has become common. Or are you just playing political games? Yes of course, the one thing that strikes the reader when they first see this article is that it is narrow. There is an argument. And it emphasizes the categories that I removed. There shouldn't be one. Is Wikipedia this political on other articles? I thought perhaps there were some editors who were interested in making articles encyclopedic. So far it looks like I was wrong. Hal Cross 17:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Obivously I know the definition of queer, as I stated it in my previous comment; I don't believe you understand my question, as I wanted to know what context you were using queer, not the actual meaning. Also, I am not playing political games; I don’t see how adding these categories have anything to do with politics, as these categories are unrelated to politics. I was confused re: your comment because queer is used to mean strange and is also used to mean homosexual. The context you were using the term is unclear, as you stated "queers" and I have looked at all the userpages of current editors of this article and only one identifies himself as homosexual; therefore, I was unsure if you were using it to mean homosexual (as there would only be one queer, not multiple queers), or if you were violating WP:CIVIL by name calling other editors queer (meaning strange). It is a good idea to avoid using queer to refer to anyone, gay or stright, as it is viewed by some as offensive and derogatory. Also, you have failed to answer my question how a category can be emphasized. I see no way a category can be emphasized, as they are listed at the end of the article along side other categories in alpha order. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 19:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

How come you seem completely disinterested in getting the article into better state? You want to accuse me (a new editor) of all sorts of stuff. I've pointed out some problems here and nobody seems to be doing anything about it. There are some editors here that seem to be resistant to doing anything to improve the article. I'll be specific. You seem to be working on making sure the article is narrow and argumentative. Hal Cross 01:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not disinterested in making this article better, I just don't have time right now. I have made some improvements in the past and I will make more in the future. You need to understand this article was written by many different people and is not the result of one editor or small group of editors who made the article "narrow and argumentative." Instead of demanding other people improve the article, why not improve it yourself? —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 04:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It's really quite irrelevant what the AFA declares on the subject - how does it go? By your deeds, not your words shall ye be known? - Orpheus, this sounds like something straight out of a blog. Wikipedia is not in the business of judging, any organization from strictly one perspective. Despite your views, the AFA's position must be taken into account in their own article. Categories appear without annotation, so developing a balanced statement is out of the question. To rename or develop new categories strictly to accomodate your views on the AFA would be an example of WP:POVFORK. As I have said many times before, a list would be far more specific and easier to balance. Citadel18080 20:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

My observation. At half way through the one month period proposed by Citadel18080, I suggested that in the interest of fairness we remove the disputed cats since they were up for 2 weeks and now, to be even, they should be removed for 2 weeks. Result? Further evidence that Orpheus and Christopher Mann McKay refuse to act in a manner other then one that acknowledges their eternal correctness on all issues AFA. They refused to work with the community and reach a reasonable compromise that the disputed category tags up for 2 weeks should be removed for 2 weeks based on simple evenhandedness.

Simple evenhandness is a quality required to work within the wiki community. A reading of this talk page reveals Orpheus and Christopher Mann McKay care less about evenhandedness, but they know from original research that they are correct. It is very discouraging to work with people who refuse to get off the soapboxes and just write an encyclopedic article.

If or when this goes to any future action of any kind, I know people will bear in mind that Orpheus and Christopher Mann McKay have their soapbox blinders on and they refuse to work evenhandedly with other wiki editors, thereby discouraged participation by other editors. That's in part why I don't edit this page much anymore -- the withering attack from the Orpheus and Christopher Mann McKay soapboxes is nonstop with no evenhandedness or compromise in sight.

Wiki policy is designed in part to encourage editors to edit. Orpheus and Christopher Mann McKay policy is designed in part to discourage editors to edit what does not agree with Orpheus and Christopher Mann McKay's soapbox. Something needs to be done here to rein in these 2 editors who refuse again and again and again and again to work with other editors under a wiki umbrella and not under original research soapboxes.

Well right now I'm very discouraged from editting. Orpheus and Christopher Mann McKay have beaten down wiki policy, thereby discouraging people from getting involved. It's time someone within the wiki powers that be get involved and take action to assert wiki policy. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 22:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hal Cross, changes are being made, albeit slowly. THe first thing that had to be done was to remove or properly classify much of the criticism of the AFA that was either unsourced or written in an NPOV manner. See [[22]] for an example of the article a month ago. Like LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, arguing over this article made me scale back my Wikipedia editing for a while. Category discussion aside, even the smallest changes in this article seem to bring endless debate. I agree with you that more info on the AFA itself needs to be included here. Citadel18080 02:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, again, use this talk page for discussing improvements to this article. Please stop using this talk page for your complaints about my editing’s or to falsely accuse me of discouraging editing the article. If you want “someone within the wiki powers that be get involved and take action to assert wiki policy,” then contact an administer and keep your rants off this talk page. Thank you. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 04:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Mann McKay, you are out of control. Your last comment was particularly unfriendly toward a brand new wiki editor, Hal Cross: "Instead of demanding other people improve the article, why not improve it yourself?" You will scare people off like that. I and Citadel18010 have already felt suppressed by your constant, never ending attacks and soapbox edits. Newbies are not to be treated in such a fashion. You should apologize to Hal Cross. Straighten up your act and fast. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 05:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, you need to stop using this talk page to complain about me or demand/suggest I do something. This talk page is for discussing improving the article; what about this do you not understand? —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 06:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi all again. I'll start again with my revised notion of WP rules in mind. Focusing back on the article, there is clearly a lot of work to do, and the present state of the article (and the talkpage) highlights certain agendas. I don't think its uncivil to state the obvious. So with that in mind, the article needs to include that broader range of information. I don't think any reasonable editor will tolerate editors with agendas whipping broader viewed information away from the article on the claim that it needs discussion. If the article is continually narrowed due to some editor's transparent agenda, then such "discussion" would simply be vexatious litigation style editing. So I hope we all realize whats going on here and try to work constructively. Having seen the rules I now agree that civility is a pretty good idea. If anyone sees me on a soapbox, please kick it away asap. Hal Cross 09:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the narrowing of the article (deletion of material) has been almost exclusively the province of Citadel, Legitimate and Pollinator. I'm tremendously in favour of adding in more stuff from the AFA's point of view to balance what's there at the moment. I just don't have the time or inclination to do it myself. That's the point of Wikipedia - everybody's interest and points of view fuse together into a (theoretically) useful whole. Orpheus 10:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Orpheus for your wise and learned perspective. I noticed you made a particularly illustrative example of such wisdom here: [23]. OK, I think discussion is a wonderful idea. I think I could go one better though and actually start to prompt discussion here. You didn’t actually make provision for discussion yourself and I am going to AGF and put it down to some sort of mistake. So here it is corrected; Lets discuss your deletion of the list of issues in the diff. Why do you prefer to put the list of issues in paragraph format?

The AFA is actively involved in multiple issues, including: the church in America, culture and society, education, entertainment industry, marriage and family, gambling, homosexual agenda, money and finance, pornography, and pro-life issues. The AFA pursues these issues through a number of activism efforts, including articles published on the organization’s various websites, American Family Radio, a national network of radio stations, AFA Journal, political lobbying, and legal efforts by the AFA Center for Law and Policy, boycotts. ^[1]^[2]

Also, now that I see the general pattern of procedure, I will follow your helpful lead and move the cats to this talkpage for discussion also:

Category:Discrimination
Category:Censorship

Feel free to discuss here Hal Cross 11:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Citadel18080 wrote most of that paragraph you just removed, and categories can't be usefully moved to a talk page. You may have noticed in the revision you cited that I was reverting to an earlier version and didn't remove any information. If you think the goals are better formatted in a list, then rewrite it in a list. Remember though that, particularly in a situation like this, it's better to edit one piece at a time rather than rewriting goals and removing categories and whatever else, all in the same edit. Orpheus 13:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello Orpheus. You seem to be a little jumpy. You said categories cannot be moved. There is no rule in WP that state anything of the sort. As far as I see from correct procedure, anything relevant to NPOV can be moved from the article to discussion page for the sake of discussion. I am moving these elements to the talkpage in order to discuss, regardless of who wrote them (none of my business really because I am focusing on facts and sourced views). So far you really haven't even attempted to discuss. I think that perhaps you are not willing to do so, although I believe we will wait for you to discuss as that seems to be the AGF thing to do. Well, we're waiting! Hal Cross 14:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC) BTW I understand the 3RR rule, so you may want to do your little undiscussed rv ploy but you'll not catch me out with the 3rr block trick thank you. Hal Cross 15:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Two things. First of all, I said that categories can't usefully be moved to the talk page. They're either there or not, so putting them somewhere else is equivalent to them not being there. That's not a policy, that's common sense. Secondly, the goals section you're deleting isn't under dispute. It may need copy editing, and Citadel18080 is doing a fine job there, but it's not a particularly controversial section - it doesn't need to be moved. You can just edit it where it is if you want to change it. There's no trickery involved - just edit the article if you have something to add. No need to play policy games. Orpheus 17:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hal Cross, in response the question you asked Orpheus, "Why do you prefer to put the list of issues in paragraph format?" - I put the bulleted list into paragraph form because WP:MOS#Bulleted lists states: "Do not use bullets if the passage reads easily using plain paragraphs or indented paragraphs" and I am in agreement with most everything on WP:MOS. This paragraph clearly reads easily in paragraph form and I see no reason to use bullets when they are completely unnecessary. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 17:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're in agreement with almost everything on WP:MOS, why are you in disagreement with the content of WP:CAT, specifically, guideline 8: Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. A list might be a better option. Citadel18080 21:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

A lot of editors have contributed to MOS either on the article itself or on the talk page and MOS has had lot more editors building consensus than the CAT article. I'm skeptical of WP:CAT because of it recommends removing any category that is controversial when there can be many categories may be considered controversial and I don't believe they should be removed merely because someone may view them as controversial; that is what WP:CfD is for. Controversial is a very vague word. Also, I don’t believe every category needs to be self-evident to belong in an article, because not everyone is fully educated about various topics, so one could easily argue an array of categories are not self-evident and remove them from the article. I would rather have the statement be reworded to say if there are controversial or non-self-evident categories to explain why they belong on the talk page or by using a comment. I plan to address my concerns about this on the talk page of WP:CAT, to see if this statement should be reworded. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 23:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Guideline 8 has been a part of WP:CAT since 2004. Given the number of volatile articles on Wikipedia, the fact that it remains indicates a great deal of consensus. One editor even referenced it as a good guideline on the WP:CAT discussion page. You and Orpheus keep advocating changing the guidelines, names of categories, or even adding new categories, just so that the AFA can continue to be described by words like discrimination, censorship, and homophobia. Like it or not, these are controversial terms in no vague sense.

Further, I disagree with you that "self-evident and uncontroversial" is vague. It is both self-evident and uncontroversial that Nazi Germany advocated discrimination and censorship because it has long been out of power and is considered to have advocated such things by a majority of the public. The AFA, on the other hand, is an active organization with a membership in the millions. If millions of people would potentially disagree that the AFA belongs in these categories, then we as responsible Wikipedia editors should think twice about keeping it in. When writing on Wikipedia, you have to consider the entire public as being your audience (public, here, being anybody who can read English and has Internet access) and, unike Nazi Germany, the public as a whole, including those who are not affiliated with the AFA, do not associate the organization with censorship, discrimination, or homophobia. Citadel18080 02:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Just because one editor said it was a good guideline does not mean anything. I never said self-evident was vague, I only said controversial is a vague term. People not affiliated with AFA believe the AFA advocates censorship and discrimination because it is a fact, just like it is a fact they are a homophobic organization. I’m not debating this. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 03:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"Just because one editor said it was a good guideline does not mean anything." His opinion is as valid as yours. So is mine. "People not affiliated with AFA believe the AFA advocates censorship and discrimination because it is a fact, just like it is a fact they are a homophobic organization." Provide reliable sources saying that this is a widely accepted fact, then we'll talk. Citadel18080 17:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Where is your source that people not affiliated with AFA do not associate the organization with censorship, discrimination, or homophobia? Please don't demand sources for things you can't back up yourself. Anyone who understands the definition of censorship, discrimination, or homophobia and are familiar with the AFA's activism would agree the AFA supports censorship, discriminates, and is a homophobic organization, unless their religious beliefs cloud their ability to see truth and reason, which often happens, especially in USA where there is a huge percentage of religious extremists. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 21:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism by Christopher Mann McKay Requires Blocking

HELP! Christopher Mann McKay refuses to work with other wiki editors and continues to steamroll over them, including newbies, and over wiki policies, practices, procedures, whatever. THE VANDALISM IS PERSISTENT! SOME ADMINISTRATOR PLEASE BLOCK THE VANDAL, BUT FOR A MINIMUM AMOUNT OF TIME, LIKE 8 HOURS. I think that will help him to understand wiki policy trumps soapbox policy. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 00:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You continue to violate WP:CIVIL policy by calling for someone to ban me. I've previously explained to you numerous times that talk pages are for discussing changes or improvements to the article and not for complaining about Wikipedia users who have edited the article; if you have a problem with me, you need to contact an administrator and keep your rants about me off this article. Here is the link to get administrator assistance: Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 02:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that policy page made my brain hurt. I just don't want to go through that process. You are already a substantial drain on me. That is why I am crying out for help. I have more important things in life to do. However, some administrators may find stopping you from discouraging newbies and anyone who disagrees with you is the most important thing to them. Everybody's different, you know. I'm hoping one of them will see this and see your never-ending soapbox edits and the relentless attacks again and again in the style you continually use. Did you apologize to that newbie yet for what you said to him? I doubt it. You know no limits to your insatiable appetite to vandalize pages, which is essentially what happens when one does the things you do in the manner in which you do it. You may take pleasure in your success in defying editor after editor after editor and in trashing newbies, but you are defying wiki policy in a particularly egregious manner, almost sociopathic, and eventually your behavior and mistreatment of newbies and flouting of wiki guidance will land you in the cross-hairs of the wiki powers that be. Until that happens, I might as well give up editing here as edits with which you personally disagree are persistently tossed out by you despite what other editors say or do in an effort to compromise. You are relentless in your point of view edits. When you are asked for sources, you point to a dictionary. When a newbie tries to help you cut out the legs from under him. When several editors try to work together you insist on doing it your way in a fashion that is infuriating person after person after person over long spans of time. I am certain wikipedia does not want vandals like you to create a permanent acrimonious environment as you have that effectively shoos away editors who try to follow wiki guidance. You'll start spouting again about how I should not say this here, your standard answer, but you will continue to gut the newbies, ignore the community, insert your vandal-like edits, insert your original research about how the AFA is the mother of all evil and you can prove it, and on and on and on. Well I am pretty much discouraged at this point. I will not be participating here anymore until someone tells me an administrator has returned wiki policy to this page and people are allowed to edit in harmony again without the Christopher Mann McKay overlord flouting wiki policy on an hourly basis and chasing away editors wikipedia is trying to attract. So have at it. Rewrite the page so that the AFA is the most heinous evil organization you know in your own original research that it is. Have fun. When I hear you have been blocked from your relentless attacks, then I may again decide to partake in this effort. In over 3,300 edits I have made over a long period of time, I have never seen anyone as mean spirited and wiki defiant as you are. Congratulations, you have effectively chased me off one of your pages. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 03:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of categories

Hello. I am providing a section here to discuss the wide range of possible categories to add to the article. Verifiability seems to be a key issue here as things can only be added to the article if there is sufficient evidence presented. Thus, the categories under discussion have been removed from the article. If you wish to add any category, there is a set of requirements that have to be met before having them in the article. So please discuss here first. Thank you. Hal Cross 12:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What are those requirements in your opinion? There's pages and pages of discussion about the categories, and in my opinion, the article should be left the way it is while they are discussed. The categories (with the exception of homophobia) are not recent additions. They've been in the article for a long time, and nobody has made a convincing case why they should be removed. My position on why they should stay is laid out above at excruciating length, so the discussion ball is now in your court. Orpheus 14:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Orpheus, with all due respect, this article was in shambles a long time before the category dispute began. You can't deny that it contained information that was unverified, inaccurate, and which protrayed the AFA in a largely negative light. The categories in question are a prime example. Citadel18080 17:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, and I have no problem with the article being worked on. I disagree that the categories are an example though - would you say that being in the Discrimination category casts Jane Elliot in a negative light? The categories themselves are succinctly titled precisely to avoid pushing a particular POV. "Discrimination" and "Censorship" are both neutral, factual terms. I agree that "Pro-censorship" would be a POV category, but we're not talking about that. Orpheus 03:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello Orpheus. You seem to have sidestepped the main issues. Categories are there to help the reader browse articles that help explain NPOV compliant concepts surrounding their subject. Thus, the censorship category should include articles such as Book Burning, Suppression of dissent and similar. There are no such concepts in this article. Any reader browsing censorship related concepts will see your inclusion and conclude that AFA is about censorship per se. Wikipedia is not allowed to say that AFA is about censorship. There may be some views on that matter, but to classify it under censorship would be against NPOV policy. As the policy states very clearly "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category.". Its as simple as that. There is a controversy about the categories that you keep forcing onto the article. Your edits seem to be working very strongly against WP ruling. Hal Cross 04:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Categories are not created solely "to help the reader browse articles that help explain NPOV compliant concepts surrounding their subject." You said, "Wikipedia is not allowed to say that AFA is about censorship"; however, it is a fact that AFA advocates/supports censorship and Wikipedia articles are allowed to state facts. Stating a fact through placing a category is in no way a violation of WP:NPOV and the WP:CAT article you quoted is not a policy. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 05:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You think its a fact that the AFA practices these things. It's really more like an opinion. You may not agree with WP:CAT Guideline 8, but many others do. That's why its been there for almost three years. Citadel18080 21:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to not know the difference between a fact and an opinion. Did you read #Summary of argument in opposition of removal of categories? If you read that section, you would see these categories are facts supported by reliable sources. Re: WP:CAT, many editors don't agree with guidelines and even an administrator told me guidelines are controversial and a lot of editors ignore them because they aren’t policy and are not always reached by consensus. Guidelines are there to guide, they are not rules, or policy; they are simply suggestions. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 19:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

AFA of PA apparently responds via 209.86.73.147

Orpheous just removed what someone (209.86.73.147 - first edit ever) just added:

"AFA does not do lobbying. They have no lobbying presence in Washington DC. This has been expressly prohibited by Don Wildmon. I talked to him in 2000 and it has not changed. Steve Ulrich AFA of PA Associate Board Member"

Thought I would post that here for people to consider / investigate / include if it is worthy. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 04:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Good call - it should be on the talk page. Orpheus 04:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The Next Step in the Category Dispute

I've been reading WP:DR and believe that its time to try another method of dispute resolution. One suggestion the dispute resolution policy suggests is to conduct a poll, but I don't see how that would be beneficial, as we all have fairly well-established views on this topic. We can try informal mediation through the Mediation Cabal, the official Wikipedia Mediation Committee, or community enforceable mediation. Any thoughts? Citadel18080 18:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Orpheus 03:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this could be the future step. There are quite a lot of requirements to deal with first. Right now the inclusion is totally unsatisfactory, both from the position of category abuse, and from the NPOV point of view. Hal Cross 04:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The categories are absolutely unacceptable, but I don't know of any requirements standing between this dispute and mediation. According to WP:DR, we've tried the first two steps of dispute resolution (discussing the problem and disengaging for a while). The RfC satisfied the next suggestion, discussion with third parties, even if nobody has responded. A poll would do little good. That basically leaves us with informal and/or formal mediation. This dispute is somewhat unique in that we are debating over categories, which are not flexible pieces of information. Either they're in or they're not. I don't know about everyone else, but I'm not going to spend another month arguing the same points over and over again. Its time to do something now. The only question is whether we want to try informal or formal mediation. Citadel18080 19:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Per request for comment: I know little about the mediation process; I will read more about it when I have more time. As far as I can tell, IMO, Wikipedia:Mediation Committee would be the best route. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 22:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Mediation okay by me. But mediation requires that people agree to the results of the mediation. From what I see, I fully expect the mediation will result in favor of following wiki policy, therefore ultimately fail if the soapboxes are not kicked out from under certain potential participants. But I suppose you have to make an effort first anyway. Might as well be mediation. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 23:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, if there is a soapbox to be seen here it is the one you're standing on. I have no problem abiding by the results of mediation. The reason I haven't agreed to taking the categories out up till now is because nobody has made a case for it that doesn't involve "We think the AFA has nothing to do with censorship". Orpheus 08:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Orpheus, you ignored my above comment, and now I am going to have to repeat myself. The category recommendations state extremely clearly "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." There are those who mention something about censorship, and there are those who deny it. Its a controversy. As editors here, there is a controversy. Thus it gets removed from the article. Its not about "we think". You comment is disruptive. Nobody is using that argument apart from you. Its about the conflicting sources. The guideline is there for a reason. There are plenty of editors here who want to stick to that guideline and exclude the cats (the guideline was written and agreed upon by many other editors and it has stood the test of time). Your insistence on including controversial cats is disruptive. You keep sticking them back into the article and you have consistently failed to satisfy the category recommendations. So please stop being disruptive. Thank you. Hal Cross 10:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that is that you could use that to exclude any category from any article. For a start, the recent announcement from the pope that all non-Catholic denominations are not real Christians (I paraphrase) creates a controversy over the categories "Christian politics" and "Christianity in the United States". Next, the definition of pornography is subjective and not well defined - there goes "Anti-pornography activists". Many conservatives would dispute that the AFA is conservative, so "Conservative organizations in the United States" can go. And finally, the AFA themselves deny lobbying politicians, so "Political advocacy groups in the United States" can go too. That's all of them - every category in this article excluded under your criteria. Nobody has yet answered this question - what is it about the other articles in those categories that makes the AFA not belong there? If it's just the name of the category that bothers you, there is a well defined procedure for getting that changed. And until the dispute is resolved, it's pointless edit-warring trying to take them out - leave the categories the way they were before the dispute and try to make a good case to remove them. Orpheus 12:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Orpheus. You seem to be in the wrong place entirely. If you have a problem with the way the category recommendations are stated, then go and argue over there. This talkpage is about the AFA. It is not about categories. Just go over to the cat talkpage [24] and tell them to remove the line on controversial subjects. You might also let them know why you want to do it. We already know why you find the line troublesome. Personally I find the line perfectly easy to understand. "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." Its very clear, the categories should be removed. As I said, if you don't like it, go with all your friends to try to get the recommendation changed, censored, cut, re-hashed, whatever you like to call it. Thats what the category talkpage is for. Hal Cross 16:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the category recommendations. My position is that it *is* self-evident and uncontroversial that the AFA article belongs in the censorship and discrimination categories. The primary reason is that the article fits very well with the other articles in those categories. My point above is that your definition of "uncontroversial" is so narrow that it excludes every other category from this article as well. Orpheus 17:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Orpheus, you will find far more people who dispute that the AFA belongs in the "Censorship", "Discrimination", or "Homophobia" categories than in the "Christian politics" category and, if someone raises a reasonable complaint about another category, it will be addressed. Personally, I think that editors across Wikipedia have gone a little crazy in categorizing articles, particularly under subjective titles like "Discrimination". In doing to, categories have gone from being easy ways to classify and locate articles to arbitrary, one or two-word labels. I don't know why certain articles have been put into certain categories, and in the context of this article, it doesn't really matter. Categorization needs to be dealt with on an article-by-article basis. If the subject matter of an article potentially touchy, controversial, or subjective, then categorization should be used sparingly. In the case of the AFA, an active political/religous organization frequently surrounded by controversy, categorization should be done with the upmost scrutiny and. That is the reason why, in the case of this article, the phrase "self-evident and uncontroversial" should be considered in its strictest sense. It is self-evident and uncontroversial that the organization belongs in the "1977 establishments" category. Considering that five seperate editors, including myself, have objected, it is not self-evident or uncontroversial that the AFA belongs in the "Discrimination", "Censorship", or "Homophobia" categories. Citadel18080 21:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

(out-dent) Citadel18080, While you might believe "editors across Wikipedia have gone a little crazy in categorizing articles, particularly under subjective titles like 'Discrimination,'" Wikipedia allows these categories to exist and just because you don’t like these categories does give you the right to remove them; if you believe these categories should not be on Wikipedia then take them to WP:CfD. You continue to state guidelines need to be followed; however, guidelines are there to guide users, they are not there to be a set of rules for users to follow. Guidelines are not policy for a reason. You are largely mistaken if you believe there aren’t expectations for ignoring guidelines. The majority of Wikipedia articles, even some featured articles, don’t follow guidelines, especially the MOS. Stating "relevant guidelines should be followed to the letter" is not true; no article has to follow any guideline, especially "to the letter." Policies must be followed at all times, not guidelines; they are two different things for a reason. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 01:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

While we're quoting policy around the place, try this one: WP:IAR and this explanatory note: WP:FCNP. I stand by my point that if you consider "self-evident and uncontroversial" as strictly as you have, then most categories would be unpopulated. Orpheus 02:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Mann McKay, please don't accuse me of exercising any "right" to remove the categoires. I did not start the category edit war, nor have I participated in it frequently or recently. Instead, I have been arguing my points here, using policies, guidelines, and examples to support my point.

Orpheus, with regards to your links, I am aware of "Ignore all Rules", but I don't think it applies here. The jist of these seems to be that policy/guidelines should be ignored if all parties agree to ignore it. If we were deciding whether to make the intro to the microwave oven article five paragraphs instead of the guideline-recommend four, I wouldn't have a problem ignoring policy. The problem we have is that the AFA is a controversial subject. With regards to "Ignore all rules", I would like to point you to Guideline 7, which is in reference to Guidelines 1-6: "Bend the rules above when it makes sense, but only if no other solution can be found." Notice that Guideline 8, the one in question, is placed after this. Also with regards to the difference between policies and guidelines: there isn't much of one. Policies are just guidelines which have been slightly better established. I maintain that the best way to write an article about a disputed topic is to follow the recommended guidelines closely so as to avoid controversy. Citadel18080 02:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Citadel, I should not have stated my words in that manor. I apologize for that and thank you for not participating in the edit war. What I ment to say is that it does not give you the right to advocate removing the categories from this article instead of addressing your concerns with CfD.—Christopher Mann McKay^talk 02:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Citadel. Thanks for the good example. I shall also not engage in edit warring (I didn't know it was a problem till now). I see that other more experienced editors are quite happy edit warring (CMM and Orpheus). For the sake of getting on with discussion etc, I'll let them "win" their war for now. Quite frankly I feel a bit silly having fallen for their game. The facts stand; the article is controversial, the views in question are controversial and as such the categories should be removed. Its common sense to allow the categories on the article just for now, just so we can stop C and O's little edit war strategy and get on with more constructive work. I notice LegitimateAndEvenCompelling has started with a useful set of construcive edits. We can continue to show how controversial and unobvious the cats are here, or through mediation. Any further disruptive editing can be dealt with via other means. Hal Cross 05:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you all noticed the so-called "edit war" is mysteriously always won in favor of the people pushing the point of view into the article? Have you noticed that people who are not edit warring but are just trying to apply wiki policy are reverted again and again by those people then are scolded for edit warring? Have any of you ever noticed that there is literally no end to the total control over this article by those people pushing their POVs? Have you all noticed that people trying to adhere to wiki policy such as by taking down highly disputed cats in accordance with policy are chastised for having a POV for taking down those cats in accordance with policy? Honestly folks, how much longer must this round and round go before something is done. We are quite literally feeding the trolls who evidently enjoy this because, by the delay in taking action against them, they get to push their POV on an article and it just drags on and on, and no effort by anyone is ever not reverted by these guys, if they personally disagree, who never stop going round and round and round again, over and over, without end, when will it end, it never ends, the ends justifies the means, and to them, the ends is to push a POV onto the AFA for all the world to know and see the AFA is the evil organization Orpheus and Christopher Mann McKay personally know it to be. Can we all stop feeding the trolls and go right to mediation, which will fail due to their POV, then go right to the next step, and the next, until the POV is removed? Aren't we all talked out by these people who refuse to budge off their soapboxes one inch? I mean just look at the size of this talk page. Look at people saying the same things over and over only to have it shot down again and again on the grounds that personal knowledge and research trumps wiki policy. The same arguments over and over. Pages and pages and hours and hours and hours of totally wasted efforts while the calumny against the AFA continues to stand. This is why I don't edit on this page much anymore. It just goes round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round. --[[User:|LegitimateAndEvenCompelling]] 06:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no intention of continuing an endless debate indefinitely. I will see what's required to begin mediation and post it here in a couple of hours. Citadel18080 17:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, you complain about the talk page becoming too long, yet you post long posts complaining about me, sometimes violating WP:CIVIL… Why not start using a talk page for discussing the article and stop wrongfully using it to complain about users? Also, you claim "taking down highly disputed cats in accordance with policy," but that is an untrue statement, as there is no such policy. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 20:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The Senate prayer incident

The recent addition about the senate prayer incident is a pretty good example of the one-sided demonization that has constantly been part of this article. Of all the news sources that could have been picked, the one cited is the most extreme and it is quite inaccurate, as well. Some of the more serious problems are:

1. The article cited is full of inflamatory statements - pretty poor journalism at least. Even the Al Jazeera article is an improvement. It is slanted a bit, but at least it avoids the rhetoric of the cited article.
2. The cited article misidentifies the American Family Association as "Fundamentalist" which it is not. Widemon is a member of the United Methodist Church, certainly a part of its conservative wing, but mainline nonetheless, and certainly not fundamentalist, because, if he were, he would leave that denomination.
3. The article claims the protestors were members of the AFA, which is not confirmed in other news sources. They actually said they were members of Operation Save America/Operation Rescue. Many news stories do not even mention AFA, but those who do generally say that the association had asked its members to e-mail and write letters to Congress.

Liberal journalists sought out and got quotes such as Barry Lynn, of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, who used the occasion to attack the Christian right for "intolerance."

Conservative journalists quoted Tony Perkins, of the Family Research Council, who commented on the issue rather than the protesters, noting that the God America refers to in the pledge, our national motto, and other places is clearly the monotheistic God of the Jewish and Christian faith. He also said that Hinduism is polytheistic and suggested that what the Senate did was to alter the national motto to "In gods we Trust."

Of course one has to read both sides to get the whole story. One key point is that three whackos, who did not follow AFA's suggestion, and who provoked an inappropriate protest, now are tools for left wing agencies, as well as some journalists, and some Wikipedia editors to demonize the Christian right. Pollinator 07:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Here are some other sources, that between them, provide more balance and at least do not engage in rhetoric as did the poor citation:

Just the bare facts: http://www.tribuneindia.com/2007/20070714/main8.htm (AFA not mentioned)

A left-leaning report: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9E586C23-7EB1-4E50-B80F-F50B702D649D.htm

A pretty balanced report: http://www.newsnet5.com/politics/13680354/detail.html (Also does not mention AFA)

Christian media reports: http://www.crosswalk.com/news/11547479/ or http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070714/28443_Protestors_Interrupt_Senate's_First_Hindu-Led_Prayer.htm

Pollinator 07:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well done, Pollinator. Now I ask, since you have proven that the AFA is not tied into that event, should it not be completely removed from the article? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 08:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I read your links. I'm going to remove that paragraph. Again, nice work. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 08:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I reworded the information, which was removed by LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, and I reinserted it back in the article, as it should be noted that the AFA is anti-Hindu and is against religious tolerance.—Christopher Mann McKay^talk 17:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this source Hindu prayer in Senate disrupted should be included. The article throws in a mention of the AFA, which had nothing to do with the protest, making it look like the AFA was behind it. Further, the protest is not even mentioned in the AFA article. The link to the AFA "Action Alert" is more than sufficient. If there are no objections, I'm going to remove the Washington Post link. By the way, LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, thank you for copyediting that section. Citadel18080 19:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I object to removing the Washington Post reference because the ActionAlert link might go dead and the AFA article references nothing about the three protesters. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 20:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

CMM, you are engaging in a logical fallacy. No doubt the three protestors were discourteous and disrespectful, and could be said to be intolerant, but there is no connection established between their behavior and the AFA. The AFA advocated communication with the elected representatives, which is every citizen's right, and can no way be described as intolerant. Pollinator 21:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

CMM said, "the AFA is anti-Hindu and is against religious tolerance." I think that statement evidences quite clearly CCM's soapbox. Exactly how is the AFA anti-Hindu? Because it didn't want a Hindu prayer in a single location under the circumstance to which the ALA objected? Hillary Clinton made fun of Hindus in a mocking voice joking about how Mahatma Gandhi runs all the gas stations, or something like that. I think that is anti-Hindu, but you won't see that on Hillary's wiki page. Yet here is CCM stating the AFA is anti-Hindu, and we are all supposed to believe CCM does not have a total and complete hatred for the AFA? He then says the AFA is "against religious tolerance"? Everyone better make sure this AFA-hater and loose cannon does not infect the page with his anti-AFA soapbox propaganda; indeed, that the very problem on this page. CCM is right, and the AFA is anti-Hindu, anti-tolerance, anti-homosexual, pro-censorship, pro-hate, heck even anti-CCM. Is there no calumny CCM will not shovel onto the AFA without a single shread of evidence other than a dictionary? An IP address recently added terrorism as another cat. Was that a CCM sock puppet? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 22:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Request

Okay, here's the deal. The process for filing a mediation request looks fairly easy, but in order for it to be considered, all involved parties have to agree. I'm not sure whether to include users who have contributed infrequently or have not participated in this discussion, and have posted the question on the talk page of a member of the Mediation Committee. It may be a few days before he replies. (Question posted here) I'd also like to recommend that everyone read the following pages as well:

Citadel18080 20:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I read some more about mediation and I don't think it is a good idea. I don't think we can agree. Also note:

"Requests which seek to have a mediator help 'prove' that one party is correct will be denied; if one or both of the parties come to mediation with the view that they are right and the other party is wrong, then mediation is not appropriate."

—Christopher Mann McKay^talk 21:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm prepared to give mediation a go. Orpheus 21:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears CCM will not budge, just as I predicted. Be that as it may, it appears he is refusing mediation, and since "all involved parties have to agree," I suggest we skip past mediation to the next level of intervention, getting a firm refusal from CCM first. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 22:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any justification for either mediation or any other form of WP:DR. You're both acting as if Christopher Mann McKay is the one with the problem conforming to your standards, whereas it strike many of us watching and sometimes participating just the opposite. FeloniousMonk 23:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Wiki standards, sir, not "our" standards. For example, wiki standards say disputed cats don't go in. The cats are disputed. Yet the cats stay in because CCM and Orpheus policy trumps wiki policy in their POV soapboxes. Further, CCM admitted he will not budge. Indeed he just added the cats back in yet again after having done it at least a dozen times despite wiki policy. Working with the wiki community is not part of how they work. Dispute resolution is needed, unless you intend for those who wish to follow wiki policy to voluntarily give up and allow the mauling of wiki policy to suit the agenda of smearing the AFA. When you add information to an article that is derogatory and that has no basis in fact, that is smearing. That's what they have done and are doing. They have no basis in fact for the cats, for example. None, other than a dictionary definition of, say, censorship, that they then, using original research, apply to the AFA. So my standards are to follow wiki standards and not to be beaten down by people who care less about the wiki community just so they can promote their own agenda of villifying the AFA. Honestly, if they showed me wiki worthy evidence of the false claims they are making, then I will add the info in myself because it is true. But they simply have not done so. In all this time, they simply have not done so. It just goes round and round and round. Look, I'm feeding the trolls again. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 01:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You call an admin a troll and then complain you're feeding trolls? Amazing. Ever hear of WP:NPA? You may dispute the categories, but your dispute appears groundless to myself and other given the available sources. Dispute resolution cuts both ways. Those who use it as part of a pov campaign to waylay more legitimate opponents often find they are hoisted by their own petard. FeloniousMonk 01:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you taking advantage of your position as an admin, if you are one as you imply? Are you sure I was referring to you instead of making a general comment about the usual trollish behavior on this page that has sent it into near megabytes? Are you trying to intimidate me by pointing out, in the fashion you have, that you are an admin? Are people now supposed to think you as an admin would be unbiased if you were involved in this matter given what you have just said? Do other admins behave as you have in this last post? I don't think I was the one who raised the issue of mediation, so whose petard are you trying to hoist me on? Are people who edit war everyone else for about a month now and refuse to have a truce "more legitimate" in your eyes? Is there a means whereby people can question whether an admin is acting in accordance with wiki admin standards? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 02:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, there it is: Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator_abuse --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 02:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"If a user thinks an administrator has acted improperly against them or another editor, they should express their concerns directly to the administrator responsible and try to come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner." Same page as above link. I do think you have acted improperly against me, I am expressing my concerns directly to you for resolution in an orderly and civil manner. You may do so be rephrasing what you have said. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 02:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You call me a troll, then accuse me of acting improperly against you? Again, amazing. As well and having been incivil you're wikilawyering here, and its digging you into a deeper hole. So far here I've seen what appears to me vexatious litigation directed at Christopher Mann McKay, incivility directed at me and wikilawyering to silence me when I called you on it, in that order. Have I missed anything? I suggest you reconsider your method of participation, these are hallmarks of disruptive editing, and the community takes a dim of each. FeloniousMonk 02:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not call you a troll, and I questioned why you thought I did. I asked, in accordance with wiki policy, that you and I come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner, by the simple means of rephrasing what you said. Your response was to exacerbate your actions against me when I raised your own incivility toward me and claim it's the other way around. Anyone reading this talk page and the main page will see that I have been trying to improve the page and have made a huge number of edits doing exactly that, backing each one with detailed history comments so everything was in the clear. Almost none of my edits are reverted, except the cat removals I made in compliance with wiki policy. You claim the community takes of dim view of my "disruptive edits." Let's poll the community. Who here, other than the rare admin who throws his/her weight around as an admin, and setting aside the sides of the fence we are sitting on, feels I have been making "disruptive edits"? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 03:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Because you asked: A lot of your edits to this talk page are disruptive and inappropriate. You sometimes use the talk page for wrong reasons, as you have attacked or acted inappropriately towards other users and you have filled this talk page with lengthy complaints about other users, which is unconstructive behavior IMO. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 04:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, CMM, I totally understand your point of view. I want you to know my arguments about you here are being made because I do not know exactly how to handle someone who persistently reverts all editors who remove cats in accordance with wiki policy. I give you credit for your persistence. But for someone who does know what to do, I want to have recorded what I perceived the problems to be and why. That's why I thought it should go on this page -- it's relevant to someone other than me who might want to take some kind of action to curtail your persistent edits.

Think about it, CCM. You and I, and others, have editted quite a lot here, and quite a lot is changing, and we disagree quite a lot, and we agree a lot, as evidenced by not reversing things. It's just the cats that is the problem.

A while back the whole article was the problem. But the whole article has changed since then, and while it's still POVish, it's a far cry better. The cats, however, you refuse to budge on. Two words. That's it. All this essentially now over two words. But, based on the reading of the wiki policy that says disputed cats stay out, I believe the cats stay out. You say they are not disputed, and those who do dispute them are just plain wrong. Whatever, I think you can see the source of everyone's frustration here. I'm just not a wiki expert. Like that admin who cited some policy at me and when I cited some back he/she claimed I was wiki litigating, or whatever. So I put my frustrations with your persistent insistance on including those cats that caused me to record my view at the time.

I think what we need is someone we all trust who looks at that wiki policy and others and decides if the cats stay or if they go. That admin who threw his/her weight around would not qualify in that area. A simple ruling just on that. What do you think of that idea? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 04:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Accusing me of "throwing my weight around" consitutes a personal attack. You really need to read and understand WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA and work on your tone. FeloniousMonk 05:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, your claim that “wiki policy that says disputed cats stay out” is not true; I believe you are referring to guidelines, which are not policy. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 05:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) LegitimateAndEvenCompelling: Please identify what administrative actions FeloniousMonk has taken which you feel were inappropriate use of his administrative functions. Has he improperly blocked you? Has he edited a protected page inappropriately? Has he deleted an article for personal reasons? If he has done none of these things, your claims of admin abuse are not only nonsense, they are trolling and attacking a respected administrator, and I advise you to slow down, calm down, and read the policies and guidelines more thoroughly - with an eye to improving your own understanding and behavior, rather than finding new ways to attack others. As a more comprehensive suggestion, remember to concentrate on the article content, not the contributor - in short, keep your posts productive rather than divisive. Finally, rather than jumping to accuse more experienced editors of abuse or wrongdoing, you may wish to consider that their expertise may help you here, and be more attentive, and ask questions rather than argue and wiki-lawyer. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and causing strife and argument harms and hinders the project. Be part of the project, not a divisive element disrupting the project! If you feel you could use assistance in learning how better to do this, try a mentor. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello KillerChihuahua. Please put me straight. I'm fairly new here and I really cannot see the problem the way you seem to be seeing it. I understand the rules on personal attack, but I think LAEC's comments were pretty mild. Do you actually have any weight here, and does FeloniousMonk have any? To my mind, there is a job of editing to do here, and I see LAEC as one of the few who is actually getting on with it. I don't see LAEC attempting to seek cruel and unusual ways of attacking people at all. From a newbie's perspective all I see is a couple of editors who claim to have "weight" laying into an editor who has pretty much kept constructive all along. Do you care to clarify or specify? Because I'd like to be part of the constructive editor team. If that means I'm against you two then I think that'd be a shame. Hal Cross 16:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I will be happy to try to explain - if I'm unclear, please let me know.

Do I have any weight: Well, I'm a longstanding contributor, an admin, a member of the mediation committee, and an OTRS volunteer - all of which (except the contributor) require approval, whether by open process, such as Rfa, or by closed, such as OTRS. Taken all together, it means when I post, although in general I'm just posting as an ordinary editor, I'm also one who might have some understanding of Wikipedia, the rules, and that I have received the trust of the community in several ways. I do have some "weight" as an administrator, but that's something I want to ensure you don't misunderstand - while an administrator can be expected to know policy better than the average Wikipedian, which is why a lot of editors ask for "admin input", we're not referees. If I express an opinion on an article, it should be taken as an editor making a comment - not as any kind of "ruling" - unless policies are involved. In that case, you may wish to add a little more weight to the opinions of administrators and longstanding editors, as their understanding of and interpretation of policies and guidelines is, as I stated before, often better than that of newer or less involved contributors. A warning from an administrator is a little more "weighty" - ignoring such warnings is usually a Very Bad Idea. FM is a highly respected administrator, and can block, protect, delete and so on. Only abuse of those actions is considered Admin abuse - it is literally, incorrectly using the admin tools. Anything which does not involve admin tools is simply not admin abuse. I hope all that wasn't too wordy and convoluted.

LAEC is engaging in accusations of admin abuse, trolling, wiki-lawyering , and so on - all of which could be construed as disruption. I say this not as an accusation, but in the hopes that LAEC will take the time to examine his approach. This post is already a little long so I'll leave it at that, and if you want more on anything perhaps you should ask on my talk page - this is really getting off the topic of the article and onto other things, which is against talk page guidelines. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks KC. I do disagree with some of your points, but I appreciate your detailed reply. Of course as a newbie I have an authority problem. I couldn't give a shit about it. I have nothing to lose. What I would like though is to encourage a fairly presented article. Just looking at your edit contributions, they're far too bloody long for me to be comprehensive about it, but you seem to be a handy editor to have around. I'd appreciate it if you stayed around long term, and FM likewise. I'm interested in facts and you and FM seem to be into that also. If I get made admin when I reach a certain "weight" then perhaps I'll abuse it as much as any other (inadvertently or otherwise). For now, I'll focus on encouraging editors here who know how to edit. Hal Cross 03:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Pink Swastika

There's a piece of text which has been removed and re-added several times (see here for content). The gist is that a senior figure in the AFA's California affiliate co-wrote a book, The Pink Swastika. I think that's appropriate material for the article because it is a) the viewpoint of a senior member (at the time) of the AFA and b) directly related to a primary goal of the AFA. Comments? Orpheus 04:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Good, thanks for bringing to talk page. Here's my view. The AFA is a national organization. This is an encyclopedic article about a national organization. What leaders in state organizations do may not be fit for a national organization article. For example, the ACLU is a national organization. It too has state affiliates. They too have past Presidents. One of the ACLU past presidents, this one in Virginia, argued in a legal case that filters should not be used in public libraries because people would essentially police themselves, or something like that. That same ACLU president, now a former ACLU president, then did not police himself and went on to be charged and convicted of some of the sickest child torture porn the judge had seen in her 10 years on the bench, or something like that. Yet the ACLU page makes no mention of this. While I do not know exactly why there is no mention of this, I think the same thing should apply on this AFA page as well. Oh, let's be clear the AFA president did not do anything criminal, while the ACLU president did, and did so in a way that was directly tied to the work he did for the ACLU. So if that criminal former state president doesn't go on the ACLU, then a law abiding former state president doesn't go on the AFA page. Besides, the article is very wordy as it stands, and most of the wordiness has to do with the single issue of homosexuality, part of the POV problem with this page. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 05:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Your points:

What leaders in state organizations do may not be fit for a national organization article.

In the absence of a specific article for the state organisation, it's entirely appropriate to put that material in the primary article.

ACLU president

You can add the material about the ACLU president if you like. I don't see why it shouldn't go on the ACLU page, perhaps with less vitriolic language. Perhaps it's not there because nobody has bothered to add it?

Oh, let's be clear the AFA president did not do anything criminal, while the ACLU president did

I don't really see how that's relevant. This isn't an attack page, we're not trying to dig out muck-raking allegations. I think it's an important piece of information that shows the viewpoint of a senior AFA (affiliate) member.

Besides, the article is very wordy as it stands, and most of the wordiness has to do with the single issue of homosexuality, part of the POV problem with this page.

The AFA spends a lot of time on homosexuality themselves, it's appropriate for the article page to reflect that. Also, the article page itself is not particularly long compared to other Wikipedia articles, and I don't think it's overly wordy at all.

So if that criminal former state president doesn't go on the ACLU, then a law abiding former state president doesn't go on the AFA page.

That's unsupportable for many reasons, not least of which is the point that if you want the material to go in the ACLU page you're quite capable of adding it.

I don't see any good reason not to include the Pink Swastika material here - it's a valid, published point of view expressed publically by a senior AFA figure and therefore it's of encyclopaedic value on the organisation's page (perhaps until a state affiliate page is written, then I'd consider moving it). Orpheus 05:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. FeloniousMonk 05:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with including it, the above tortured reasoning notwithstanding. Feel free to add it. FeloniousMonk 05:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling deleted it but I've restored it. His justification for deletion was specious; there's no policy or guideline that supports his action. FeloniousMonk 05:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

He is not a high ranking AFA official. He IS high ranking in the state organization. The high ranking state organization official in the Illinois Library Association branch of the American Library Association used a potentially illegal means to sway legislation by shutting down library computers statewide as a form of protest. Are you suggesting I can update the ALA's main page, since no Illinois page exists, with this potentially illegal action by a leader in a state division of the ALA? I doubt I can do that and I doubt it would be appropriate, and I doubt it should be done here and I doubt it's appropriate. Naturally, you all agreed with each other, one of you didn't wait for others to respond, and poof, the potential POV is back in the article. And the self-proclaimed admin did that--the one supposed to be setting the example.

Specious means "having deceptive attraction or allure, having a false look of truth or genuineness." So now the admin is saying I am being deceptive. And on that basis he/she goes and puts the potential POV back in the article without waiting for everyone to respond to Orpheus's good move to seek comment in Talk. Too bad we did not attract the attention of another admin to help us. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 05:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, my restoration of the content was far less unilateral than your single-handed deletion of it. Also, mind pointing us to which policy or guideline that requires us to wait for everyone who's edited here recently to respond to a comment? And when was WP:BOLD deprecated? FeloniousMonk 06:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting I can update the ALA's main page, since no Illinois page exists, with this potentially illegal action by a leader in a state division of the ALA? - sure, if you can find a reliable source on the subject. Go for it. Be bold. Orpheus 06:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No comment on specific additions, deletions, resortations etc, just I notice a lot of changes today, and I reckon change is good, but it may help by slowing it down a tad. Just my view. Hal Cross 08:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) LAEC: You have now attracted the attention of another administrator. I will not repeat myself, but ask you to read my post in the section above. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Activism

I am improving the activism section. I have already found a lot of sources, but it will take me a week or more to integrate them into the article. I know the section currently looks disorganized, but I plan to improve it and differentiate between on-going protests, and past protests--further classifying as successful or un-successful. I am going to classify protests as successful, if the AFA claims they are successful, but I will explain if they aren’t truly successful; for example, in the P&G protest the AFA claimed success, but P&G claimed they still advertise on gay-related television shows and have not changed, so I would note this. Is anyone opposed to this or have any suggestions for improving or formatting this section? —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 21:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, what criteria are we going to use for what does and does not go into this section? A good encyclopedia article provides a summary of the most prominent and important aspects of a topic. For example, the 9-year Disney boycott is more important than the complaints about the movie Shark Tale in a concise summary. We do have other options, such as a seperate list of boycotts and other activism activities, but if we want to keep the "Activism" section in the article, I would recommend keeping the mentions of specific incidients small (i.e. one sentence, maximum, with sourced analysis) in order to keep the entire article a reasonable length. If you want to post some of your sources here, please do so, and we can split the workload. Citadel18080 22:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

IMO, any activism should be under this section, but I'm unsure if the "Shark Tale" comments should be under this section, because I'm not sure if that is considered activism or just the AFA's stance on a certain movie; I am not opposed to moving it to a different section. I don't think we should limit descriptions of the boycotts to one sentence; IMO, having two or three sentences is not too much. If the section becomes too long, I can always make a separate article called something like "Activism by the American Family Assoication" and summarize that article under the ‘Activism’ section on this article. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 22:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The future of this article

Greetings, FeloniousMonk and KillerChihuahua. I would like to make a few clarifications since this talk page has become somewhat immense, and I'm not sure how much of the you've had time to read. FeloniousMonk, you mentioned to LegitimateAndEvenCompelling on Talk:American Family Association that, "You may dispute the categories, but your dispute appears groundless to myself and other given the available sources." I suggest that you read this. The categories were first removed by User:Pollinator who, like both of you, is an administrator. I am of the opinion that articles about controversial topics like the AFA should be written as close to Wikipedia policy and guidelines as possible. WP:CAT Guideline 8 states that, "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. A list might be a better option." I have repeatedly suggested to Christopher Mann McKay and Orpheus that accusations of Censorship, Discrimination, and Homophobia could be included in lists or the aptly named "Criticism" section of the article either permanently or as a temporary compromise while we waited for other methods of dispute resolution to work their way through the system, but have repeatedly been refused. As for mediation, if people don't want it, then we won't do it. I for one, however, am sick and tired of reiterating my arguments ad infinitum and would like to see this dispute resolved, through arbitration, if necessary. What are you're thoughts? Citadel18080 21:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration is not applicable for article content disputes. This is a content dispute. I am here not to play referee, but to suggest to LAEC that he attempt a more productive approach to his interactions with fellow editors. I have given no opinion on the content dispute. Mediation is almost certainly premature. I suggest you start a new section, and discuss only the disputed categories and whether they are applicable to this article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Previously there have been multiple sections discussing only the categories and that has gotten us nowhere (no one has changed their stance on the issue). If there are any new arguments under this proposed section then I will participate in the discussion; however, I do not wish debate any augments previously discussed, as I don’t believe that will be constructive. I have already clearly stated my argument under #Summary of argument in opposition of removal of categories and others have clearly stated their opinions. I'm not sure there is much else to do, but to wait for third-party comments. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 00:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. KillerChihuahua, since you appear to be a neutral third party and an experienced administrator, how would you suggest we go about resolving this dispute? I'm not asking you to play referee, I just want to figure out the best way to proceed. Please keep in mind that we have been discussing this for about a month and have thus far gotten no responses on the RfC, which has been up for about three weeks. Citadel18080 01:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Due largely no doubt to the problem that ever section begun seems to almost immediately go off topic and even into personal attacks. However: I still suggest a new section be started, paste your reasoning if you must. Any posts which are not about the two categories, move to another section, or remove completely if they are nothing but personal attacks. Until the chaff is seperated from the wheat, it is unclear what the next step should be. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

(Post moved from other section, after sectionbreak added) One category MUST go, simply because it is pejorative. You, CMM say it's in the dictionary, so it's OK. Well "nigger" is in the dictionary, too, but it's not a category, and I'm sure it never will be. Wikipedia is not about insulting people with pejoratives. So let it be. Pollinator 03:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This is rather vague, please try to be concise and clear. Which category "must" go? Please refrain from unhelpful comparisons with pejoratives which are not categories, and commentary about what Wikipedia is Not (unless this applies 'directly to the category objection.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

LAEC off topic

This article suffers from more than mere content disputes. Setting aside additions like this: "We look upon Wildmon's efforts as the greatest frontal assault on intellectual freedom this country has ever faced," there is a steady drumbeat of long term and persistent vandalism despite repeated warnings. It was common sense to me that this was the case, although I knew not what to do about it, but when FeloniousMonk went on my user page to challenge me to read the vandalism policy, among other things, I did. Only then did I learn that my common sense view was indeed part of wiki policy, and I so stated. At least one editor, perhaps more, has, according to the plain language of the vandalism policy, committed acts of vandalism. Indeed he/she/they continue to commit these acts of vandalism. I hope someone, some group, is willing to help in this regard.

KillerChihuahua, respectfully, it appears you have been misinformed about what has been going on on this page, and it appears your first appearance here is directed specifically at getting me to change my behavior. KillerChihuahua, and everyone else: I have legitimate (and even compelling) cause to believe vandalism is occurring on this page, as I stated as linked above. I have attempted, and others have attempted, with zero success, to encourage the vandalism to stop. While I may have used capital letters in my frustration over the neverending vandalism, that does not mean the vandalism issue is nonexistent. Further, my claims of vandalism are based on wiki policy. No. Let me rephrase that. They are not merely based on the policy, rather the policy is specifically written to deal with the specific vandalism occurring on this page. "WP:VAN#What_vandalism_is_not Though inappropriate, [NPOV violations are] not vandalism in itself unless persisted in after being warned." The vandal(s) have persisted after being warned of NPOV violations.

Now let's all assume for the sake of argument that those conditions are not technically met for one reason or another. Still, anyone can see I had an honest basis for making the vandalism claim, common sense then Wikipedia policy being that basis. Further, I think we can all agree that seeking help to stop vandalism by saying vandalism is vandalism is what we all do when we try to stop vandalism. The only difference here is that I see the vandalism as it is defined, while others may be first considering it now if they are being fairminded. Further, when the vandal(s) persist in vandalizing the page and acting in the trollish fashion they have, it is fair to say I should stop feeding the trolls. Indeed I never even heard of trolls until wikipedia. I am just using the term wikipedia uses for the behavior of the vandal(s) in this matter.

The problem on this page is not me calling vandals vandals or trolls trolls. The problem on this page is the serious POV present in the page precisely because the vandals are the vandals they are. Numerous people are directing months of effort to rid the page of POV, and instead they are attacked for being "anti-gay right people."

In consideration of this, can anyone honestly say that LEAC (me) is the problem here for calling vandals vandals and trolls trolls where wiki policy is four square in support of the view that the vandals are vandals and the trolls are trolls, at least basied on a good faith reading of that policy? Can anyone honestly think this page will improve if LEAC is less involved and the vandal(s) contributions continue unabated thanks to the effort by the vandal(s), FeloniusMonk, and KillerChihuahua? Pollinator, Citadel18010, Hal Cross, and others who have been valiantly but futilely attempting to stop the vandalism along with me, are their efforts to be ignored when casting judgement on LEAC?

Will the vandalism ever stop?

Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 02:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You are in error. I have not "been misinformed" I wandered into this myself, and base my statements entirely upon a perusal of the talk page. I have not addressed any problems with the article, nor have I offered an opinion on whether there are any such problems or what they may or may not be. And yes, you are indeed a problem here. Very much so.
Hear me clearly, as you seem to have trouble with this: Call another editor here a vandal, either directly and specifically or as a general attack as above, and you will be in violation of NPA. Your post above uses the word VANDAL or VANDALISTIC no fewer than 35 times, as well as troll several times. This is completely unacceptable, and is a violation of NPA. Cease, you are disrupting this talk page with your insistance on hostile smears on other editors. Consider yourself warned. Stick to the article and do not attack your fellow contributors again. Puppy has spoken; puppy is done. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, I see it as you are the one who is vandalizing by removing categories when there is no policy violation, but I don't fill up this page with repetitive complaints of you or repeatedly call you a vandal because, IMO, it is unconstructive, rude, and a misuse of the talk page. Also, on my talk page that you reference, I meant to type 'anti-gay rights', but I left off the 's'; it was a typo. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 02:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

(post by Pollinator moved to section above after sectionbreak added) KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Mann McKay, you've made LegitimateAndEvenCompelling's point even more clear with the statement that there is "no policy violation." That is an opinion, not a fact. Wikipedia policies have been interpreted both for and against retaining the categories in this discussion by myself, Legitimate, Pollinator, and Hal Cross. You have consistently stated that our views on the cat debate and Wiki policy/guidelines are, among other things "lies", "mistaken", and "wrong". You've made your position clear and if you don't want to repeat it, that's fine. That does not give you cause to pretend that our arguments aren't there. When you say "there is no policy violation", you are implying that you don't take our arguments seriously. This attitude is not conducive to consensus-building. I'm not saying that Legitimate's use of bold and capital letters was any more approriate, but with the way that our arguments are treated, that behavior is a little more understandable.

FeloniousMonk, with regards to your first post on this board, LegitimateAndEvenCompelling did not call you a troll. I'd advise you to read the complete "round-and-around they go" discussion which began with this post on June 17 by another respected administrator. Besides, why would Legitimate accuse you of being a troll after only one post? I'm going to assume that the whole incident was a misunderstanding. KillerChihuahua, I would also advise you to read the entire discussion before making assumptions about Legitimate's behavior. Again, I'm not endorsing said behavior, nor am I asking you to get involved. I just think that Legitimate's actions need to be looked at in context of the the entire discussion, which has become very exasperating. Citadel18080 03:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Citadel18080, your above edit to to criticize my comments is unnecessary. I only said there is not policy violation in having these categories. Others have said there is a policy violation, yet you did not attack them for posting their "opinion," as you put it. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 04:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

<joke>Depends on what the meaning of is is.</joke> --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 04:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

And the beat goes on: see [25] and associated history comment. There simply is no slowing this particular vandal down, even despite all this about his very activities. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 05:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia policy WP:VAND, which states "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." Thank you. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 06:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not vandalism when someone disagrees with you. Orpheus 06:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not a disagreement. It is understandable that one of the possible vandals would say that, but it is not a disagreement.

At least ten times on this talk page the relevant wiki policy has been pointed out, and each time that policy is tossed aside by the vandals in a flip manner, just as was just done here again. Let's look, for example, at a past comment left by yet another editor:

Ten times that very WP:CAT has been cited again and again and again and again. The vandals simply did not care, tossing it aside like so much dust on the soapboxes on which they stand. The vandals were warned again and again and again not to do this. Even during this very conversation right now, they show no reluctance, zero, to continue to go on their merry way unaffected by wiki policy (small p) or wiki community.

Now let's look at what the vandalism policy says, and yes, I have to repeat it, likely the first of many times, because the vandals never address such things directly and toss them aside as "disagreement" or "not policy" or "be bold" or "the only rule is break all the rules" or "the dictionary says we're right" or "it's obvious" or "it's non-controversial" or "it's a good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered" or "you're just anti-gay right people" or other excuses that are either false or irrelevant or inapplicable or in your face. Here's the policy:

From WP:VAN#What_vandalism_is_not: "Though inappropriate, [NPOV violations are] not vandalism in itself unless persisted in after being warned."

And that is EXACTLY what we have here. NPOV violations, for example as ~a pointed out as I quoted above, persisted in after being warned, as I pointed out in having WP:CAT quoted 10 times to them by numerous editors, and by other means.

This is not a disagreement. This is vandalism as defined exactly by the vandalism policy. Why have that wording in the vandalism policy if not to address this very situation going on here for as long as it has where the vandals have so flippantly flipped off editor after editor after editor trying to get the vandals to stop vandalizing the page. Since all these editors are "anti-gay right people" from the point of view of at least one of the vandal's soapboxes, the vandals simply refuse to follow wiki policy and simply refuse to work with the wiki community.

What is occurring on this page is vandalism, not disagreement. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 12:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The above editor has been blocked for continued disruption and personal attacks after warning. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

Hi. Noticed the infobox is for a company; there is an infobox for non-profits located at Template:Infobox NPO. Thought ya'll might like to know. ZueJay (talk) 00:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I tried to find that template, but I was unsuccessful. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 00:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, its kinda buried - took me a while to find it too. I actually modified it once I found it. I don't think it gets used a whole lot. Enjoy ;) ZueJay (talk) 00:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)