Talk:American Family Association/Archive 3

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.

01 – 02 – Archive 03 – 04 – 05

Homophobia Category

I see no problem in keeping the "Homophobia" category. As it has been previously stated here and elsewhere, "homophobia" is actually a neutral term referring to fear, loathing and/or discrimination against homosexuals. It is neutral because it DOES NOT state whether homophobia is socially or politically right or wrong, it merely describes what it means. The actions of the AFA clearly and unequivocally fall into the category of homophobia, primarily based on the issue of discrimination. The AFA campaigns to block equal rights for gay citizens and generally tries to prevent the "acceptability" of homosexuality in American society. This is the very meaning of discrimination. It is not POV, it is a fact - and cannot logically be disputed. To be quite honest, I am pretty appalled that we as Wikipedians are even having to go to such extensive lengths to prove a very straight-forward fact.Kookoo Star 12:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kookoo Star. For the sake of clarity, I've put your response in a new discussion thread. The issue with Category:Homophobia is one of specificity. "Homophobia" has become a buzz word in the heated gay rights debate. It is not a socialy accepted frame of reference, and therefore not an approriate place to categorize the AFA in a politically and socially neutral encyclopedia. In other words, the average Internet user would not come to the AFA article, read it, and consider the organization homophobic. The AFA's involvement in the gay rights movement has been documented under Category:History of LGBT civil rights in the United States. Citadel18080 16:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Kookoo Star. I have made multiple arguments in support of keeping the Homophobia category after it was removed and spent a lot of time debating it. This was during the same time I was attending school and could not devote a lot of time arguing about keeping the category, so I just gave up debating it and agreed to remove it. Multiple other people have stated they believe category:homophobia should belong, so now I believe the category should be included on this article for the same reasons Kookoo Star stated above.

Citadel18080: "In other words, the average Internet user would not come to the AFA article, read it, and consider the organization homophobic" is opinion and not true. Plenty of information on the article explains the AFA advocates discrimination of homosexuals and further proof is on Talk:American Family Association/Archive 2#Summary of argument in opposition of removal of categories. Homophobia is a neutral term and when category:homophobia was taken to WP:CfD, it was an overwhelming keep, which shows there is nothing wrong with using category:homophobia, just as there is nothing wrong with using category:antisemitism. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 17:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The category itself is not in question. Homophobia is in the dictionary, and I have no problem with articles which expand upon its meaning being categorized as such. Homophobia is a politically/socially charged term, however. To include articles of organizations which oppose gay rights in the category is no different than making a category entitled "yuppies" or "RINOs" (That's Republican in Name Only for thsoe who aren't from the U.S.)

Christopher Mann McKay, since you deleted my question from your talk page, I will ask you again here: why are you breaking the established consensus? I'm perfectly willing to have Category:History of LGBT civil rights in the United States as a substitute to Category:Homophobia. Citadel18080 18:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Multiple users believe category:homophobia should stay and multiple users believe it should be removed; that is not considered consensus. I only agreed to removing it in the past because I was tired of debating it over and over and I was short on time due to school. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 23:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The question of whether Category:Homophobia is a perjorative and charged category was dealt with in the CfD it survived, and the community consensus was "keep". I think the AFA belongs in that category. I can see that there may be a case for renaming the homophobia category, but this isn't the place for discussing that - there's a specific forum for renaming categories. Orpheus 00:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

We're not talking about Category:Homophobia, we're talking about this article. Orpheus, you agreed that Category:History of LGBT civil rights in the United States was a suitable replacement. Christopher Mann McKay, you made no objection whatsoever when Orpheus made this statement, which indicated consensus, not a lack of time. We had an excellent compromise that acknowledged both sides of this discussion and, if we're all tired of debating this topic, I recommend that we stick with it. Agree/Disagree? Citadel18080 00:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Just because there was an agreement before, does not mean that agreement is set in stone and cannot change. During the dicussion about the categories, I said: "I prefer to keep Category:Homophobic, but maybe it's best remove it, as I don’t have enough time to debate it and I’m not opposed to comprising," so obviously I had a problem with the category, but didn’t have the time to debate it, so I just comprised and agreed to removed. I now changed my mind. Lets stop talking about the past agreement, as I don't see how it is revelant; some of the users who are in favor of adding the category weren't even in the dicussion that led to the agreement to remove category:homophobia. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 01:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed homophobia cat again. It is pure POV. Phobia is fear. The AFA is not afraid. I will go to the mat on this again. Did we take a, what, one month hiatus from the wiki policy violations and now we are back to policy (small p) violations? I am ready for another go at this. I will follow that wiki policy and stop others from violating it. Homophobia stays out as agreed, unless we talk it out all over again with the newbies involved. And if we do talk it out, the cat stays out while we talk about it. If not, we should jump the mediation ladder and go straight to the top as this would be just part of the near half year long stranglehold on wiki policy that the inclusion of this cat exemplified in the first place. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 01:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"Phobia is fear" - correction: "Homophobia – irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals"[1]. There is no WP:NPOV violation or any other Wikipedia Policy violations by having this category. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 01:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Two things, LAEC - first, there's no policy violation here. It's a dispute over whether the category is appropriate for this article. If it was a POV accusation to put the category in an article in general, then it wouldn't have survived CfD. If you disagree with that then this isn't the right place - file another CfD and see what the community says about it. Second, please drop the "near half year long" thing. The dispute lasted six weeks, check the dates. Hyperbole helps nobody. Orpheus 02:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Citadel, Chris, Orpheus and Legit. With regards to Citadel's characterisation of the term "homophobia" as being socially/politically charged - that is adding your own slant to the term. As I said in my previous message above, the term is actually neutral as it does not make any assumptions in whether hating, fearing or discriminating against homosexuals is right or wrong. If you are suggesting that linking the AFA to the category of homophobia will put them in a bad light when other people read the article - I imagine that some people will see them in a bad light and some wont, depending on their own personal politics. I also imagine many won't care. We cannot prevent the different ways in which different people respond to the word "homophobia" but this should not be used as a motive to obscure the truth. As far as true definitions go, the AFA's actions quite easily link them to the term homophobia no more or less than they link themselves to "Christianity" categories. This is without prejudicial slant or attempting to skewer the truth to make them look better or worse than they actually are, it is simply fact. They match the definition of homophobia, which is a viable and socially accepted term to describe disrimination against homosexuals. The definition makes no moral judgements, it just defines what the word means. To remove homophobia as a category for the AFA is like removing the category of racism from the KKK article. It simply describes what they do, regardless of whether some people are appalled by it or not. It is the organisations own fault if their actions put them in a bad light with some readers, but I imagine they are aware of this before they do what they do. They choose to do it anyway.Kookoo Star 01:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

(od) Why don't we make it "Homophobia in the United States". That seems to have been a successful compromise in the past. Orpheus 02:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Orpheus, the "six months" reference may refer to the previous discussion over the cats which occured some time ago without resolution. I'm afraid I can't agree with "Homophobia in the United States" I wouldn't have a problem with something like "Gay rights debate in the United States" or a list of organizations that are accused of homophobia, however. Kooko Star, with regards to the AFA's actions being in a "bad light", the AFA publicly states on its website that it does not hate homosexuals, a key aspect of the definition of "homophobia". While primary sources are not considered as encyclopedic as secondary sources, it is sufficient to move the declaration of "homophobia" to a list or the article's "criticism" section. Wikipedia Category 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. (Christopher Mann McKay, if you disagree with this guideline, then open an RfC on it. Myself and others believe that it is relevant to this article. Since we disagree so fundamentally, I again recommend that we stick with the original compromise and drop this matter.) Citadel18080 02:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Just want to clarify my last post a little. I think that the original compromise is the best, as Category:Homophobia was replaced with the less charged Category:History of LGBT civil rights in the United States. Another category along the lines of "Gay rights debate in the United States" would be an acceptable addition, however. Citadel18080 02:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Orpheus, we can remove all controversial categories according to WP recommendations. Thats what happens with cats on Wikipedia. Right now it seems that Kookoo Star is threatening the compromise by trying to start up another controversial cat war. All controversial cats can be removed according to recommendations, including censorship in the US, and discrimination in the US. I believe Kookoo Star needs to read the archives very closely. Hal Cross 02:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That was a tongue in cheek suggestion. The only reason that Homophobia was removed is that it is a subcategory of Discrimination. At the time, Discrimination was in the article and having a subcat was a clear breach of WP:CAT. That's no longer the case. I think there's plenty of evidence that the AFA belongs with the other articles in the Homophobia category, enough to make it uncontroversial. Remember - controversy doesn't just come about from Wikipedia editors disagreeing. We need to take account of the category guidelines, but not be absolutely bound by them - that's why they're guidelines. If there's a good reason for adding a category, even if some people disagree with it, then that's possible. I think there's a good reason in this case, others disagree. Fine - let's discuss the reasons, but appealing to policy isn't the way to resolve this. Orpheus 02:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This is more than about that particular category. There was a compromise involved in the whole set of categories. Now that editors are trying to break the compromise, then WP recommendations can be followed again, and all controversial cats can be removed. Its an easy solution and you can use lists instead. Hal Cross 02:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Citadel - what the AFA calls itself on its website is not really relevant. Wikipedia is not an AFA website (although I can see that many people try to make it one). Some people, such as yourself, believe "homophobia" is a controversial term. But the AFA are a controversial organisation. And regardless of what anybody says, they match the definition of homophobia to a tee because the definition includes reference to "discrimination against homosexuals". They don't have to fear and hate them as well (although many would say that it's obvious they do), they just have to purposely discriminate in order to be categorised as homophobic. And as for these so-called compromises, the truth should never be compromised just because some people are uncomfortable with it. Kookoo Star 02:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia isn't really about the Truth. It's about what's verifiable. The question here is: Does the definition of homophobia include discrimination against homosexuals? Does the AFA advocate discrimination against homosexuals (regardless of whether they call it that or not)? If the answer to both of those questions is yes, then the category belongs. Orpheus 02:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes Orpheus, thats the argument you have unsuccessfully been trying to persuade other editors with for many months in order to have the category repeatedly restored. The main issue is there has been a long controversy over these controversial categories. Recommendations state they can be removed and lists used instead whenever there are arguments going both ways (i.e. a controversy). That way we don't have endless disputes and NPOV policy is maintained. Hal Cross 08:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

What part of the argument do you disagree with? Orpheus 12:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The truth vs verifiability argument belongs to Wikipedia. Your argument is wrong in toto because it avoids or dismisses the notion of controversy. It is verifiable that there is a controversy. As such, controversial categories are inappropriate because insisting upon them allows proponents of that view to push it at the expense of weight and balance. So the only sensible thing is to do without the cats altogether and move to lists so that we don't have endlessly disruptive disputes. Hal Cross 14:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Citadel, you state: the AFA publicly states on its website that it does not hate homosexuals, a key aspect of the definition of "homophobia -- The AFA's web site, where the AFA claims they are not in favor of censorship because they state "censorship, by definition is government imposed" is not revelent. Censorship has multiple meanings and does not exclusively mean government imposed, so citing how the AFA believes they are not in favor in censorship by the government has nothing to do the AFA inclusion to Category:Censorship, as this category does not exclusively refer to censorship as government imposed. I've stated this before multiple times before.

Hall Cross, guidelines are not policy and do not have to be followed; they are there to guide, to recommend. Plus, you have failed to show proof of the category being controversial from a reliable source, but instead claim it is controversial because there is controversy among Wikipedia editors. This is a very weak argument you keep using. This has been explained to you many times before, but you still use the same weak argument.

I wish editors would quit using the same very weak arguments, which just fill up the talk page and get us nowhere. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 16:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Christopher Mann McKay, you may not like our arguments, but we've shown respect for your POV by agreeing to the use of categories instead of lists, the retention of Discrimination and Censorship in slightly altered form, and the substitution of homophobia with the LGBT civil rights category. The consensus you seem to have in mind is everyone agreeing to your POV, and I don't see that happening. The point of consensus is to come up with a solution that all editors can agree to, if only reluctantly. We had that in the form of the initial compromise. Given the amount of time we've been arguing, I believe that we have an irreconcilable difference of opinion. So, since we're all busy people with better things to do than try in vain to convince each other that we're right, let's end this and move on. Citadel18080 17:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's replace argument with discussion then. Wikipedia isn't like politics. It's not about conceding ground to win ground somewhere else, or defending territories or positions, or anything else adversarial. It's hard for us, coming from an Anglo-Saxon culture where adversarial contests dominate the political and legal systems, to make that distinction. What we need to do is debate in a spirit of inquiry. Any change made should be for a good reason. The changes made to the previous categories were to make them more specific, and to eliminate duplicates and subcategories. That's fine - that's a good reason. There's been no reason given to remove the meat of the category though. Going from Discrimination to Discrimination in the United States just changes the geographical scope, not the term. That says to me that the community recognises that the category is not accusative. In the case of Homophobia, it was removed as a duplicate. Now that the article isn't in Discrimination, it's not a duplicate.

Now, I can see the point of view that Homophobia is a more accusative and controversial category than Discrimination. However, there's already a consensus on that point of view - it was rejected in a category discussion. That consensus was based on the opinions of many more editors than are involved here, and it had the benefit of not being mixed up with the pro/anti dynamic that seems to have arisen here.

In summary, it seems logical that we can treat Homophobia in the same way as Discrimination and Censorship by not considering it an accusation, but a neutral descriptive term. If you're unhappy with that conclusion, then the best way to resolve it is to ask the community to rename the category. Otherwise this will happen over and over again - somebody new will come along, look at the article, think "Hey, I just read in the newspaper that the American Family Association is talking about discriminating against gays - why aren't they in this category" and add it. The fact that somebody did that with no prior involvement (or knowledge of) the prior consensus is, to me, quite a powerful reason in favour of adding the category.

Orpheus 05:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Citadel. I suggest we give them a few days or so to change their minds on homophobia. If they don't remove it then all controversial cats can go altogether (including censorship in the US etc), and the list recommendation followed instead. There's no point getting into long arguments over definitions or reversions. If the homophobia cat is still there in a few days then we can simply follow recommendations (because they exist due to WP consensus and so that NPOV is not circumvented) and remove all controversial categories. They can present any POV using lists. In the event that agreements are being dismissed, then we can only fall back on recommendations. Hal Cross 08:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Orpheus, you are not following discussion, or recommendations. If you are not interested in honoring a compromise that was very generous towards your POV, then all we can do is follow recommendations and remove all controversial categories. Hal Cross 08:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hal Cross, WP:CAT states “controversial” categories need to be removed. You have refused to prove (through a reliable source) there is any controversy (outside of the controversy surrounding Wikipedia editors) to qualify as a violation of this guideline and even if there was a violation of WP:CAT, guidelines are not always created by consensus and guidelines are often ignored. Please understand this is a very weak argument and the categories you believe are controversial will not be removed and turned into a list because there has been no violation of any Wikipedia Policy in having these categories. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 10:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

CMMK, you are making disruptive accusations. I'll give you a few days to reconsider your breach of compromise. Otherwise recommendations will just have to be followed to the letter. Hal Cross 13:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hal, that sort of comment is completely unhelpful. Nobody is being disruptive. You don't own the article, nobody does. Engage in the discussion and address the arguments. The threats you keep making don't bring anything constructive to the discussion. I note that you haven't contributed to a single Wikipedia article except for this one - perhaps if you went out and got experience in the wider community, you would have a more constructive perspective here. Orpheus 13:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Orpheus, I have done nothing that would go against any recommendation in the own article. I am being accused by CMMK of doing something, and I simply have not committed any offense. I am quite within my rights as an editor to work on this article. You are now telling me to edit elsewhere and you are accusing me of making threats. I don't need to edit elsewhere as I can see perfectly well how other editors and administrators manage to get along and I am following their lead. I will remain patient. Please reconsider your actions and comments. Hal Cross 15:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting deja vu here. I'm not particularly interested in fighting my way through this particular army of straw men, so I'll leave it at this: You still haven't discussed the reasons for taking out or leaving in the homophobia category. Saying that the existing categories exist only at your sufferance isn't an argument, it's a waste of everybody's time. Orpheus 16:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You are getting deja vu because you seem to be dismissing the very generous compromise that was offered. None of my statements have been straw men at all and all I have done is patiently respond to your and MCCK's accusations. The facts are clear for any editor to see from even the most basic beginners ref to AFA [2] the homophobia issue is controversial. As such, the category can be deleted. I am more than happy to revisit this subject. Hal Cross 16:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

(od) The AFA's about page isn't a reliable source in this context - it's a sympathetic POV. It is not controversial to say that the AFA advocates discriminating against homosexuals. In fact, they've said it themselves: [3] says (in part) "To keep homosexuals from being legally married is discrimination for good reason". Remember that the category doesn't say that homophobia is a bad thing. To some people, it's an eminently justifiable attitude. The article being categorised under Homophobia doesn't make a statement one way or another. Orpheus 17:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Negative aspects of the term "Homophobia". This links to a PDF file. Citadel18080 19:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't relevant. Issues with the category itself should be taken to WP:CfD. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 20:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It's very relevant. As I have said repeatedly, the issue here is not the category itself, but whether or not the AFA should be included in said category. The source I referenced specifically refers to the negative aspects of the term "Homophobia" as it relates to assumptions made about religous organizations like the AFA which are described as homophobic. Maybe I should have made that more clear in my previous post, but the article is pretty straightforward in what it's referring to. Citadel18080 21:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Citadel, thats an interesting paper. I think it can be useful to WP in general as it goes through the problems involved with broad sweeping and generally pejorative categories. Its certainly one good piece of evidence that highlights the problems that are happening here. Its clear and well written so it should help together with all the other controversy evidence we've collected already in the archives. Thanks. Hal Cross 03:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

What is this "controversy evidence we've collected already in the archives" you state? I have read the archives and have seen zero proof of controversy outside the controversy surrounding Wikipedia editors. Please elaborate. Also, this document does not prove whatsoever there is any controversy surrounding ‘Category:Homophobia.’ —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 05:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

CMMK. Several editors, including myself have pointed out the abundantly obvious fact that the categories are controversial and the sources show this is a fact. Editors have been showing you for months. Also, the document above does show that attaching the term homophobia to a subject is controversial. Its a good source that shows the homophobia cat is controversial and can therefore be removed at any time. There are obviously differing views on this matter in the literature, so there is a controversy. You always have the option of using lists, and that is always more reasonable compared to maintaining pointless conflicts over cats due to conflicting POVs. Hal Cross 09:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

(od) That PDF (good find, Citadel) suggests that the term "homophobia" might be prejudicial, and suggests "sexual prejudice" as an alternative. The interesting thing is that it doesn't cast doubt on the point of view of the category, just on the specific word used. In other words, the religious right in general (and the AFA in this case) *are* homophobic, according to the paper, the authors just believe that it's counter-productive to use the specific term so they have a euphemism. Wikipedia isn't, in general, that keen on euphemism. What you should do is raise a CfD and cite that paper as a reason for renaming the homophobia category. If it gets renamed, then it'll be changed here too. If the wider community still sees nothing wrong with the term, then I don't see why it needs to change just in this article. Orpheus 08:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

As a followup, Citadel, the point you are making could, and should, be applied to any article put into this category. I don't see a reason to split this article specifically out. Either the category is pejorative and should be avoided, or it's a descriptive term and is ok to use. The last CfD said it was ok. A new one may change the consensus, but I think the original applies until that happens. Orpheus 09:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Orpheus. Such distractions will not help. I believe it would be more productive to focus on repairing the main problems that have just happened over the past few days here. There is a controversy so the cat can be removed. Or would you prefer to put some effort into making amends and working back towards the previous compromise? Hal Cross 09:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? "Make amends"? For what? Asking for wider input isn't a distraction, it's a logical step. There's nothing special about this article compared to others the Homophobia category might be applied to, so I fail to see why an existing consensus can't be applied or a new one sought. "There are obviously differing views on this matter in the literature, so there is a controversy" - you haven't shown anything like that, and I haven't seen any sign of this "literature" you're so keen on mentioning. Orpheus 09:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Orpheus, I do feel that editors see you and CMMK as being very keen to break the compromise that took other editors a lot of effort to work though. Even the doc above kindly provided by Citadel shows that there is a controversy, and with the homosexual agenda being such a glaring issue in this article it makes the controversy all the more obvious. But I am still open if you somehow manage to find a way to get the compromise back on the table. Hal Cross 09:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, the document provided by Citadel does not show there is a controversy about AFA's inclusion under the category. The document is something that may be useful in an argument if 'category:homophobia' is nominated for CfD again, but besides that, it is irrelevant. This is a flawed argument; understand this please. Thanks. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 17:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

CMMK, its not a question of understanding. I understand what you are saying. What you are saying is wrong. The article shows that there is a controversy about using the term homophobia, and that includes all cases including the AFA. The controversy is specifically focused on the erroneous use of “phobia”. As such the proponents of this view will inevitably disagree that AFA is homophobic. Thus, there is clear controversy and the category can be removed even based on this evidence alone. Hal Cross 07:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Internet resources

Stepping outside the Category dispute for a minute, is the "Internet resources" section reasonable to include? I would argue "No" because it seems to serve primarily as a link farm. These sites are linked through the AFA's website (www.afa.net); they seem extraneous. ZueJay (talk) 00:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I changed the name to "Internet operations" to indicate that it describes websites operated by the AFA and not resources for Wikipedia users. The links are there because no Wikipedia articles have been created for the sites as of yet. Citadel18080 00:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The sub-section name change greatly helps explain this section. Perhaps it is the entire Operations section that needs expansion, at least additional explanatory text, as it still seems like a list of links which would be more appropriate as ELs. Hmm...thinking about it. ZueJay (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm opposed to removing the 'Internet operations/resources' section because I don’t see it as a violation of WP:NOT#LINK, as the text is describing the various web sites and their purposes, which is important because the AFA has multiple web sites for different purposes. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 01:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. More explanatory text would be good as well. Citadel18080 02:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Problematic editing concerns

Okay all, the vandalism has officially returned. The vandal, CMM, even violates the 3RR rule to assert his POV. About a half a year (since March) this vandalism has been going on with a short hiatus for the vandal to make then break his agreement. And I was banned for pointing out the vandalism for what it was, leading to the eventual agreement, proving I was right. I tire of seeing the constant vandalism on this page. I will not likely edit here any more and I am removing the page from my watch list. The vandal has officially chased away an editor, me this time. There are more important things in life than going after a person who promotes his own vision of the world by equating the AFA with the Nazis, and that it what the homophobia cat essentially does, and in violation of wiki policy (small p) no less. People are totally powerless at wikipedia to stop the vandalism. Someone please let me know when the vandal has finished violating wiki policy in, say, another half year or more I guess given his persistence and wikipedia's total failure to control the vandalism, then I'll come back and edit. In the meantime, the AFA will be equated to the Nazis by a person with an agenda that no one has stopped for almost half a year and I'll bet no one can stop. Hence, I'm out of here. Anyone care to contact me further, use my Talk page. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 02:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Good faith edits are not vandalism. You have been told this before. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 03:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Godwin's Law has finally been triggered. Orpheus 18:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Breaking consensus is not considered "good faith", Chirstopher Mann McKay. Neither is deleting reasonable questions from your talk page without answering them. Orpheus, the comparison to Nazis stems from the other articles included in the Homophobia category. Now, back to the topic at hand. Citadel18080 19:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus can change. When consensus changes, and edits are in good faith, it is not considered vandalism. You need to read WP:CCC: "Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for the community to change its mind ... A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision, but when the article gains wider attention, others may then disagree. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision. No one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed, or that it is fixed and determined." Please stop complaing about consensus being broken and realize when consensus changes, edits are in good faith, unless of course they are vandalism. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 04:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The vandal is at it on another AFA page, this one created by him to further his POV/vandalism, adding the same category suffering from the same problems as the half year long vandalism here. See [4] and I suggest people look at that page as well with an eye toward removing the vandal's soapbox.

And given the sentence, "San Francisco officials discouraged local TV and radio stations from running Truth in Love advertisements," perhaps the Censorship cat ought be added to the San Francisco page.--LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 07:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi LAEC. I wouldn't call it vandalism [5]. I would say its more like more of the same problematic editing. I think there are some pretty cool long term WP ways to handle the situation, and I don't mind being patient about it. Hal Cross 07:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I did not call his POV edits there vandalism, just soapbox. The vandalism here occurred only due to a number of factors including the passage of time. Such passage of time has not yet occurred there so for that reason at least it is not vandalism. But here I was proven right and the POV was finally removed -- until the vandal decided to put it back, of course, and we're off to the rces again with no one in the wiki world apparently able to stop his vandalism. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 07:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Probably the best way to handle potential long term vandalism is to report to the proper admin channel without actually referring to the editors or ip numbers on talkpages or edit summaries as vandals. We can work on a vandalism report if you like. Evidence is clearly building up so we may have a really good case to present before long. Hal Cross 08:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You can "work on a vandalism report" if you like, but you will never have "a really good case to present" because I do not vandalize Wikipedia and admin will likely ignore you, just as they ignored you last time you used ANI to complain about me when I had broken no Policies. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 08:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. A WP compliant report is well on the way. Hal Cross 09:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

(od) Give it a rest, you two. Nobody is vandalising or anything of the sort. Making a report might be useful, but only if this time you pay more attention to the response you get. Orpheus 10:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Orpheus, I'm not accusing anyone of vandalism on the talkpage because I feel that would be unconstructive. I'm just compiling evidence. Hal Cross 11:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Compiling evidence for what? A major revelation, accompanied by dramatic music and Morgan Freeman voiceover? Have a read of WP:POINT when you get a minute between evidence items. Orpheus 12:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Orpheus. I believe I am helping to keep things reasonable here so that any accusations are kept within reason and only made in a constructive way at the proper venue. I would rather like to discourage accusations either way on this talkpage. Hal Cross 14:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

AFA views on the homosexual agenda

Hi Getaway and welcome. You made this reversion [6] I am not quite sure what you mean by unreliable sources. They are the views of AFA members and associates and they come directly from the AFA website. Could you explain what you think unreliable means in this case, and perhaps explain why you would want the point of view of the organization members to be removed from the article? You also removed the pedophilia category. Do you have any evidence that the issue is controversial? Hal Cross 14:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The AFA website isn't a reliable source because it's not independent. If you quote their viewpoint almost verbatim you're turning the page into an advertisement for their views. The "homosexual agenda" has its own article - it doesn't need to be expanded in this one. As for the pedophilia category, it's not controversial at all. It's merely utter nonsense. Orpheus 15:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The AFA website is one of the most important sources on AFA. And if you are not willing to allow the core AFA viewpoints and concerns into the article, then you are simply not following NPOV policy. All significant views are to be shown on the article, and that definitely includes why they are concerned about the homosexual agenda. The way it is presented right now looks like the narrowest set of issues has been chosen and maintained there [7]. What's more is that it is full of biased writing, such as the use of the term "claims" all over the place. If you look through the AFA website it is full of issues and concerns about the homosexual agenda that go way beyond what is written into the article right now. It definitely needs the main concerns to be shown without any kind of information suppression [8] "It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability". Hal Cross 00:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What's not neutral about that paragraph? It states clearly what the AFA thinks. It doesn't add commentary like "The AFA's views in this matter are widely considered by sensible people to be conspiracy theorist lunacy". Your version presented their opinion as fact. It's not - it's their opinion, and while it's important to include it in the article, it's equally important to qualify it by presenting it as their opinion. Orpheus 01:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Orpheus, I presented the views of AFA on the homosexual agenda as they see them: [9]. I used the website and looked through all the articles at the main concerns and wrote them down there, and I stated "Members of the AFA are concerned about what they see as....". The views of AFA need to be presented. I am doing that. You narrowed the viewpoints in the section and removed the main reasons for AFA concerns about the homosexual agenda: [10] and as such, the sections there become narrow and biased. So I'll continue to work to make sure the view of the AFA is "summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability". The homosexual agenda is clearly a key issue in this article so it would help if the main concerns are not whisked away as and treated as if they are "utter nonsense" as you put it. Hal Cross 16:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You're presenting those views as fact. They're opinion, not fact. Nothing in what you added is new to the article, and Wikipedia isn't the place to advertise the views of any particular organisation. It's enough to mention that they think there's a "homosexual agenda" and provide a link to their website. Anyone who wants an in-depth list of their specific claims can go there. That's the difference between summarise and gush. My utter nonsense comment referred specifically to the pedophilia category you added. Don't take my comments out of context, it's not conducive to a contructive discussion. Orpheus 23:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Orpheus, I presented the fact that the AFA holds those specific views, and they are specific to the AFA's views on the homosexual agenda, rather than other views on the homosexual agenda. The pedophilia category can be added, unless you have evidence to say that the it is a controversy. It is not utter nonsense, as AFA are most concerned about the homosexual agenda promoting pedophilia. I did not[11], and I assure you I will not present those items as fact. I will follow WP recommendations and policies on those points as always. Hal Cross 07:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact that they hold those views is already clear from what's in the article. Your text adds nothing new except supportive wording, which is definitely not NPOV. The category you propose to add is ludicrous and does not make the point you think it does. Orpheus 08:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No it is not clear at all, and keeping those specific views out of the article is information suppression. Please stop suppressing information. Regarding the pedophilia category, I am not trying to make a point by disruption. I have always said that if a category is uncontroversial then it can go in. Its clearly relevant and you have not shown any evidence of controversy and as such, it can apply in this case. Hal Cross 08:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

(od) It doesn't matter if it's controversial or not, the category is irrelevant. Also, I'm not suppressing anything, so there's no need for that particular accusation. Your recent change has a few problems.

"Members of the AFA" - you can't really characterise individual members like that. It's the organisation's position.

You took out the AFA's claim of biblical support, which needs to be there (saying "believe" isn't right either, because an organisation can't really "believe" something).

I've rewritten the passage accordingly. Orpheus 09:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem at all with stating that it is an organizational position. I think the "believe" issue is a moot point, but I am flexible on that, and again, I have no problem with stating the AFA uses the bible as one of their sources of support. Hal Cross 07:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Edits by Hal Cross

Regarding: these edits: "states they must speak out against the acceptance of sin, and oppose the homosexual movement's efforts to convince society that homosexual behavior is normal, as they believe it may lead to the normalization of what they believe is even more deviant behavior" - This sentence implies homosexuality is a sin and is unnatural; wording opinion as fact and POV pushing is not consistent with Wiki Policy. Also, these edits removed the reference to ex-gay activism (supported by a source); this should not have been deleted because it is a large part of AFA’s activism regarding homosexuals. I reverted these edits and slightly re-worded the paragraph to read better. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 22:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi CMMK, firstly, I didn't remove anything about ex-gay activism. I understand what you are saying about implications, though I don't think your objections warrant such a massive reversion [12] because my edits are all supported by the source whether you like them or not. I will nevertheless take into account your objections in my next adjustment. Hal Cross 06:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I see now you did not remove the reference to ex-gays; my mistake. The massive reversion you reference of is merely the version before you edited it with a few changes, such as removing some excess words. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 18:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Kmart boycott (1990)

Would that be considered successful or unsuccessful? WAVY 10 16:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point, Wavy, and welcome. What is a successful boycott? From what I understand, if they managed to create a significant boycott (they definitely boycotted something), then its a success, no matter what the reaction of the company or the law. The terms may need some adjustment in the article. I'll have a think about how to do that. Hal Cross 06:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I would only classify a boycott successful if it has success, not only if they "managed to create a significant boycott." For example, the Walden Books boycott was obviously unsuccessful, even though it was "significant.” —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 18:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Success or non-success is POV. This is only one of the problems that has to be sorted out regarding the POV that has been troubling the article. If there is a view that there is a success, then we can state it. And if there is a view that AFA are continuing the boycott, then that can also be stated. The fact is, AFA have made statements saying they are going to keep the heat turned up [13]. Or do you have a specific objection to continued boycotts being presented, CMMK?Hal Cross 07:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Pedophilia

What does pedophilia have to do with the AFA? If the answer includes the myth that homosexuality and pedophilia are in some way linked, then you're going to need evidence for that. Orpheus 09:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

No Orpheus, I don't need to provide my own research to say that homosexuality and pedophilia are linked. That would be OR. All that needs providing is the view that they are linked. Its already there. In fact, sources written by some homosexual groups actually state that pedophilia is a core part of their part of society. BTW, I just remembered there is a lot more of related issues to add to this article. Thanks for the prompting. Hal Cross 09:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the material you are adding is that it is slavishly following the AFA's views. This is an article about the AFA, not a mirror of their viewpoint. The text "the consequences of killing unborn infants" stands out as an example. Orpheus 10:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Orpheus, I'm not doing anything slavishly. I have always attributed statements to sources. If you have a problem with that then perhaps you should try to change NPOV policies. Right now it seems to me that one particular article section should be presented to you yet again: [14]. Right now, as you can see from this diff: [15] it seems that you have an aversion to allowing an article which has all relevant views where "each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability".Hal Cross 13:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't mean you copy and paste the AFA's press releases. This is an encyclopedia article, the material should be encyclopedic in nature. I should expand. When the AFA says they are concerned about all those things, that's fine, good material for whatever people want to read it. But it doesn't need to be in an encyclopedia article. None of what they say is verifiable. It's not sourced, or backed up by research. It's pure opinion. If you stuff the article full of it, you're making the article into one of their press releases. I agree that it's important to show the AFA's view, but it needs to be concise, not repetitive, and at least attempt to take a neutral tone. The abortion bit is an example. Saying that the AFA publishes information on "the consequences of killing unborn babies" is a ridiculously slanted statement. Saying that they are anti-abortion is factual, concise, and does not in any way misrepresent their viewpoint. As an aside, if you prefer the term "pro-life" then that's an arguable point, but I think Wikipedia should avoid euphemism - the AFA is anti-abortion, Planned Parenthood is pro-abortion and they should both have the guts to stand behind their position. Orpheus 13:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Right!!?, your solution is to delete whatever commonly used statement is used in the source (eg, Pro-life), and replace it with the one you most like the sound of (Anti abortion, AFA are strongly anti-abortion). Your little tutorial above is just smoke. I understand you have a certain bias against AFA, and I can accept that. But please allow the specific concerns of the AFA to be heard, and please do me a favour and stop trying to pull the wool. I wasn't born yesterday. Hal Cross 13:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Pro-Life can also mean against the death penalty or against war; anti-abortion is more specific to AFA's views. "The consequences of killing unborn infants" is obviously a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. Please understand this and try to contribute to this article with a NPOV. Thank you. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 00:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to allow the actual meaning of pro-life according to AFA. Whereas Orpheus is narrowing it to mean anti-abortion per se. Who is violating policy here? Suppressing information into a narrow view is not something WP policies are intended for. I know you don't like AFA's views, but its AFA views, among others, that need representing here. Please don't make it hard for editors to do their basic job. Hal Cross 01:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not define words to how other organizations may define them; what AFA defines as pro-life or censorship is irrelevant. Pro-life is a vague word, as it has many meanings. If it is an abortion issue, state that, if it's also a stem-cell issue, then state that also, and so on. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 01:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

(od) My comment was prefaced by "as an aside" and included statements like "I think". It's not a statement of policy, it's my opinion. I've reworded to make it less ambiguous, but I fail to see the problem with a simple factual term like "anti abortion". I assume that the AFA is, in fact, against abortion? Orpheus 06:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Orpheus, I believe you have simply reworded your opinion into the article. The issues that the AFA are concerned about are listed on AFA pages, and they say their concern is pro-life. You say their concern is anti-abortion. Pro-life goes far beyond basic anti-abortion. AFA has reasons for being pro-life and those reasons should be stated. The article has suffered from information suppression and I am working on solving that problem. Its a shame that there is such a strong resistance to letting the broader range of views be heard. The issues are pretty obvious. The homosexual agenda issues are strongly motivated by child porn, age of consent, and pedophilia concerns. I think its time to state what the AFA is actually concerned about, with all qualifiers added. I just found a ton more stuff on pedophilia that comes from sources other than the AFA articles (which qualifes as AFA viewpoint anyway). AFA is against the homosexual agenda's promotion of pedophilia. Despite your resistance, the info is going to get into the article because its verifiable and relevant viewpoint. And there's plenty more where it came from. And unlike the homophobia category, there is no controversy over the pedophilia issues. Thus the pedophilia category applies, and the homophobia category can be removed at any time. Hal Cross 06:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is being suppressed. This is beginning to remind me of the peasants in Monty Python & The Holy Grail. Let's look at these points in turn:

The material you added on abortion is not factual. This article is not the place to have an abortion debate. It's an encyclopedic article about the American Family Association. It is not an advertising poster, or a channel for their viewpoint to come across. It's an encyclopedia. We should describe their beliefs without necessarily parroting their line of reasoning. Saying "The AFA is strongly pro-life and publishes information on the infant's struggle to live, organizations that offer pro-life sexuality resources, what they see as the callousness of abortion, post abortion syndrome, the killing of healthy newborn babies for stem cell research" is nowhere near neutral. It's simply biased, unsupported advertising material. Their website is not in any way a reliable source for this stuff.

The "homosexual agenda" is arrant nonsense, and the idea that gay people are somehow trying to get pedophilia accepted is totally without foundation. The AFA publishes stuff on it, sure, but that only warrants a brief mention in the article, which it already has. You are not adding new information, you are pushing their viewpoint with no attempt at balance or neutrality.

If you have sources regarding "the homosexual agenda's promotion of pedophilia" then the place for that is the article on the "homosexual agenda". I doubt those sources are particularly reliable, because I have never seen any evidence for what you're suggesting. This may be a surprise to you, but gay people tend to like people their own age just as much as straight people. Orpheus 14:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Orpheus, you have once again removed the stated views of the AFA [16].I know those views are not neutral, nobody's views are, but it is a fact that the AFA has those views and publishes such concerns. I know you want to present "AFA are anti abortion". But that is the narrowest sense of pro-life possible. It makes the AFA look obtusely hard line, when in fact, if you care to read their actual concerns, they have actually a specific, rich, and broad range of pro-life and pornography related concerns. Repeatedly removing the views of the AFA the way you are doing is totally out of order. There is no way you can keep the stated views of the AFA out of the AFA article. Those views are totally relevant to the article, regardless of your insistence on "factual views". Concerning your last sentence, I will deal with that on your talkpage. Hal Cross 16:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to remove the views of the AFA. I am trying to present them concisely and factually. The AFA are opposed to abortion. That's a public stance that should be in the article. They publish abortion-related literature. That could go into the article. Saying that they publish literature "on the infant's struggle to live" is ridiculously POV and shouldn't go into the article. Do you see the difference? One is presenting a view. The other is proselytising. If you want to say something on stem cells (in a neutral manner) then go ahead, but I don't really see the point. The AFA has the same views on abortion, stem cells, contraception, morning afer pills, sexuality in general as all the other conservative-Christian organisations. You could cover them perfectly adequately with a single link to Christian right or something equivalent. The only ones that stand out are the pornography/obscenity campaigns and the homosexuality stuff, because it's so important to them.

I think that the section on the AFA's views is a hopeless case, actually. In my opinion, it should be replaced with a broad statement that the AFA's views are in line with the mainstream Christian right, a link to their views page, and a detailed look at where they focus the majority of their efforts (obscenity and homosexuality). Orpheus 00:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Orpheus, "the infant's struggle to live" is the view of the AFA and I gave links for the reader to follow up on each of those points. It is very clear that it is the AFA's view and not Wikipedia saying anything about struggling infants. Your dismissive actions are really telling. Lumping all Christian right groups with the Christian right is unreasonable and pretty much the same as removing all Christian right articles from Wikipedia and just have the groups listed on the Christian right article. Here is a pointer: All articles are specific to the subject. That means that the reader will benefit when they read specific views and facts about specific subjects. Otherwise you may as well write: The AFA, hate abortion, are homophobes, and well, basically are the Christian right. Believe me, I'm being as reasonable as possible under the circumstances. Please stop trying to remove the stated views of the AFA. They are relevant here and the reader will benefit when they read the actual worldview of members of the AFA. Hal Cross 03:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"the reader will benefit when they read specific views and facts about specific subjects" - Wikipedia is not a place to replicate the AFA's views in detail on every single issue. If readers want to know the specifics about the AFA and their stories about killing babies in the Ukraine then they can go to the AFA's web site, which is linked from this article. Maybe you would understand this more if you edit other articles outside of this one. It is good to be specific, but not excessively specific. Look at other articles. For example, organizations such as the ACLU have many views on a large array of issues; however, the ACLU Wikipedia article does not attempt to list or state all their stances on various issues, but rather broadly lists their views under the Positions section. Other Wikipedia articles of large controversial organizations also broadly state their views. There should be no exception for the AFA, especially when edits are worded in a non-neutral and un-encyclopedic way. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 10:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC) .

There is nothing wrong with briefly stating the AFA views as I have done. I'll do the extra work you seem to be prompting though, and make an adjustment. Hal Cross 11:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Edits by Hal Cross and LegitimateAndEvenCompelling

Regarding: Hal Cross's 20:09, 3 September 2007 edit and LegitimateAndEvenCompelling's 23:37, 3 September 2007 revert. Some obivous problems include, but are not limited to:

"the possible consequences to marriage, the family, and increases in crime and pedophilia" - This is insinuating obscenity may lead to "increases in crime and pedophilia," which is OR and unproven.
"strongly pro-life and publishes information on what they view as 'the infant's struggle to live'" - This should be worded anti-abortion because the AFA does not state they are pro-life in the sense they are against the death penalty. "Strongly" and "the infant's struggle to live" are completely unnecessary non-neutral statements.
"organizations that offer pro-life sexuality resources, what they see as the ‘callousness of abortion’, post abortion syndrome, and reporting on the killing of healthy newborn babies for stem cell research" - There is no need to go into specifics. Mentioning “killing of healthy newborn babies” merely due to one news story (link) of a possibility that infants were killed in the Ukraine for stem-cells is not important or relevant enough to be mentioned. There is nothing on “post abortion syndrome” on the reference (link) provided and even if there was, it lacks importance or relevance to this article. There is also nothing on the reference provided on the AFA being concerned with “callousness of abortion” and even if there was, quoting the AFA is completely unnecessary and POV when their views can be addressed without quotations in neutral terms without going into unnecessary details.

—Christopher Mann McKay^talk 09:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

CMMK, The post-abortion syndrome information is on a related link, but I don't mind losing it for now. It can always come back later with a more specific line. The rest is all well sourced and relevant as it is directly related to how the AFA view those issues they are concerned about. They are all stated as AFA views, and no reader is going to think that they are particularly factual or supported by scientists, or any other such independent authority. I'll make the appropriate changes. Needless to say, constantly removing the stated views of the AFA only damages the integrity of the article. If you wish to vent about what you see as factually erroneous statements, you could always contact the AFA and state your case to them. As Wikipedia stands, all relevant views are to be included. Hal Cross 11:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC) PS, I will have to explain some basic things to you about NPOV policies, but don't worry, I'll keep it on your talkpage. Hal Cross 11:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I see we're back to the vague insinuations. The views of the AFA are represented in the article already. Repeating their marketing blurb is not helpful or encyclopedic, and what you are adding does not add useful information to the article. Orpheus 13:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Huge sections were removed. Complaints here are made about some wording within those sections. Why not just change the wording instead of removing the entire section? To me, the entire section removal bespeaks the continuing POV/bias of the removers to shape this article into their own personal soapboxes.

Yes, I see the point about some words not being right. I agree. But I do not agree entire swatches of work by Hal Cross needs to be completely cut to maintain the cutters soapboxes. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 13:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm not on a soapbox, and neither is CMMK, so that particular accusation doesn't need to be chucked around. Normally I would agree with you that taking out huge swathes of work is bad, but have you actually read what was added? It didn't add anything to the article that wasn't already there, except for conspiracy theories about the "homosexual agenda" and pornography leading to pedophilia and unspecified other crimes. Now there's certainly a place for that in Wikipedia, but this article isn't it. Orpheus 14:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

As an addendum, when Hal first made those edits I went through and incorporated the useful bits into the article rather than just making a blanket revert, so the version CMMK and I have been reverting to already includes some of Hal's points. Bear that in mind when you consider the content differences. Orpheus 14:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Orpheus, I don't care for soapboxing and I generally ignore it. What is really important here though is that you and CMMK are very frequently removing the stated views of the AFA on the AFA article, and its because you object to those views [17]. You state they are conspiracy theories and allegations of crimes. Realistically, the only way to respond to your objections and deletions is to restore the information because the information belongs exactly in the article and it is perfectly neutrally presented as the opinion of the AFA. If you don't like certain views you should really try get used to them somehow. Because Wikipedia is going to have to be full of views that are objectionable to you and others. Its a fact of life here, and resisting that fact really does make productive editing impossible. Please learn to face relevant views. They belong in the article. Hal Cross 14:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: "the information belongs exactly in the article and it is perfectly neutrally presented as the opinion of the AFA" - WP:NPOV states information should be presented in a neutral way. Presenting information "as the opinion of the AFA" is obviously not neutral and therefore is in violation of Wikipedia policy WP:NPOV. Please understand and stop your blatant policy violations. Thank you. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 19:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

CMMK, I have already explained this point to you on your talkpage. Its simple basic NPOV policy [18]. We are to "assert facts about opinions". Otherwise WP could not report anyone's opinion on anything and nobody in the world would have a view. Hal Cross 00:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You are not asserting fact about opinions; you are wording opinion as fact in a non-NPOV. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 17:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

CMMK, please present a specific example. Hal Cross 06:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, CMMK, I've given you plenty of time and you seem to be more interested in other matters: [19]. It seems your objections are baseless. I'll just get on with presenting all relevant views. Hal Cross 09:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) For a specific example, look at my first comment on this section. In addition to my first comment, I found even more WP:OR violations regarding your edits. Your statement "Specifically, the AFA are concerned about obscenity issues, the rise of online pornography and the possible consequences to marriage, the family, and increases in crime and pedophilia" is completely un-sourced. The citation ([20]) you provided is a link to a story about a teenager who was paid $50 to take off his shirt on a web cam and then the article talks about how children are opposed to pedophilias and pornography on the Internet. The articles says nothing at all about "the rise of online pornography and the possible consequences to marriage, the family, and increases in crime and pedophilia." Additionally, your second statement about pro-life is also OR, as you need to link to specific articles and not a general page that has links to an array of different articles. I reverted your edit again. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 13:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

CMMK, your explanation above only deals with a small fraction of the deletions you made, and in fact your objections are fairly petty and simply do no warrant such deletions. You need to explain much more fully all the sweeping deletions of sourced facts that you made. Hal Cross 15:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

No, my explanation deals with all the deletions I made. I don't have to explain anything else. It is clear your edits are inappropriate, un-encyclopedic, and a violation of WP:OP and WP:NPOV. I will not waste my time debating this anymore. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 20:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit War

Enough with the edit warring, please! WAVY 10 14:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Too right, Wavy. Its probably high time for dispute resolution. Hal Cross 14:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

What the fuck?

In the first paragraph, it says that the AFA "supports equal rights for homosexuals", while the article goes on to describe the AFA's various crusades against homosexuals and quote them as saying that homosexuality is wrong, etc.

Obviously, some hack's trying to push a POV, but failed so hard that even I could see it (not to mention the fact that extreme conservatives aren't known for their support of gay rights).

172.129.31.51 18:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Merely from reading what you just wrote and not much else, it appears you have argued a non sequitur. You say "extreme conservatives aren't known for their support of gay rights" yet you complain the page talks about how the AFA's "supports equal rights for homosexuals." Equal rights and gay rights are different words and likely different concepts, so I see no inconsistencies of which you are complaining. It is possible to support equal rights while not supporting gay rights, and vice versa. Would you please clarify? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 12:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not possible to support equal rights if one does not support gay rights, such as gay marriage, adoption, and non-discrimination policies. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 19:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Formatting edits by Hal Cross

Regarding 9 September 2007 edits by Hal Cross, which I reverted:

On the first sentence of the article, "…that promotes conservative Christian values" was deleted and "The AFA is a Christian organization, which admits to holding a Biblical worldview, and seeks to promote the truth found in the scripture" was added under the ‘Beliefs and goals’ section.
- This edit is completely unnecessary because: the AFA is a conservative Christian organization and that should be stated in the lead section; because the newly added sentence is too lengthy, when it can be summed up in one term, ‘conservative Christian values’; and because it is major WP:NPOV/WP:OR violation to assert the"scripture" is "the truth."
"The organization defines itself as 'a Christian organization promoting the biblical ethic of decency in American society with primary emphasis on TV and other media'" was removed from the fourth sentence in the lead section and "intended to represent and stand for traditional family values, focusing primarily on the influence of television and other media – including pornography – on society" was added to the second sentence of the lead where "that promotes conservative Christian values" previously was.
- This edit is unnecessary because: pornography is assumed from the deleted AFA quote of "biblical ethic of decency" and because the AFA advocates traditional Christian family values, not merely "family values." A quote from the AFA seems sufficient enough and I don't think we need to paraphrase anything.

—Christopher Mann McKay^talk 19:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

CMMK, all those deletions you made[21], were of verifiable and attributed statements straight from the AFA literature [22], and they presented a more neutral and concise lead section. Scripture wasn't mentioned there at all. There were no NPOV violations there whatsoever, even in the section lower down about scripture. Its a statement about the worldview of the AFA and is automatically attributed to the AFA and any reader will automatically not assume that scripture is absolute truth according to Wikipedia. I'll restore the information later and add more sourced information for support. Hal Cross 19:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hal Cross, the deletions you made ([23] & [24]) were of neutral verifiable and attributed statements. I removed your statements, because they were unnecessary, as explained above. You state "scripture wasn't mentioned there at all"? What about your addition of "promote the truth found in the scripture"? This statement is a WP:NPOV/WP:OR violation, as it inaccurately implies what the bible states is true; it doesn't matter if a Wikipedia reader will assume otherwise because the statement is still OR, as it is unproven. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 20:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

CMMK, Its our job to report the views of the AFA. The views of the AFA are relevant on the AFA article. It is inevitable that their views will be reported. We are supposed to allow all relevant views even if we don't like them or believe them. Hal Cross 02:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

PS, hi CMMK, you attempted no discussion for your prior edits [25]. I made an inclusive edit, and applied more care over the controversial category issue[26]. I have found a lot more information on the issue of the homosexual agenda and pedophilia. Do you have any specific suggestions on how to present it long term? Hal Cross 15:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

CMMK, Its our job to report the views of the AFA - no, it isn't. We're writing an encylopedia article, not a press release. The objective is to present a neutral description of the American Family Association. That doesn't mean we need a complete copy of every viewpoint they have ever held. Orpheus 20:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

mediation

an AN/I case has been opened regarding the dispute on this page.

can the people involved please give some basic points to the information they want in and the information they want out and the reasoning for both? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me, but ANI is not mediation. --ElKevbo 14:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hal Cross comments

Firstly some context: CMMK and user Orpheus seem to me to have put up quite a lot of resistance to the presentation of relevant and sourced AFA viewpoints:[27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] and have labeled the AFA as homophobic using categories during a long category dispute [35][36]

CMMK seems to have been quite dismissive of efforts to discuss [37], seems to think that stating sourced relevant statements is OR: [38], and reverts instead of making simple alterations [39].

Its very easy to Google for the figure of 200000 for the size of the organization: [40][41]. Simply asking for a source would be constructive, rather than deleting it out of hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hal Cross (talk • contribs) 12:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Making the opening more neutral and representative is my objective. "Conservative Christian" can be construed as POV. So I removed it from the opening line. I believe Wikipedia would be wrong to classify it as such and I would keep the opening line more neutral, just as I have [42]. To state its name and who started it is pretty neutral. Then I feel it is conventional on encyclopedias to state their case as they would state it. They do state they are about decency, and they show their concerns about pornography among other issues. I have no problem with any POV that states it is a Christian Conservative organization, as long at that POV or statement is attributed and kept out of the opening line. To my knowledge, I haven't removed any sourced or attributed relevant views.

In my view the lead section is wrong. The whole article needs improving because it seems to have suffered some undue POV pushing via the persistent removal of relevant AFA viewpoints. The lead needs improving with reference to [43] and the whole article needs all relevant views to be presented. Currently there is still resistance to that in my view. Hal Cross 11:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Mann McKay comments

Hal Cross' edit (diff), removed "... that promotes conservative Christian values" from the first sentence. In Hal Cross' edit summary he states the statement he removed is "politicised"; however, I disagree. "Conservative Christian" is a neutral term that describes what type of organization the AFA is. Further, the sentence Hal Cross puts in place of the deleted sentence is "The AFA has over 200,000 members, with centers all over the United States," which is un-sourced. Even if the statement had a citation, it does not warrant the deletion of valid information, but should be placed in addition to the information already on the article. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 03:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

other comments

i request each of you give references for the following:

- 200000 for the size of the organization - place reference/s here: *ref1* *ref2* *ref3* (fill in the refs that you can)

[44]
[45]Hal Cross 03:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

- comment - second source seems to be a mistake Hal. best i can see the number refers to PFLAG. are there any other sources? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

- Conservative Christian - place reference/s here: [46] *ref2* *ref3* (fill in the refs that you can)

- - comment - seems well enough referenced (in the article) to me - i'll follow the rest of the discussion. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes the AFA is called Conservative Christian by various sources but its a complex issue. I think it is sensible that Wikipedia should not state that though as there is nuance and POV attached.

Some members of the AFA would say Conservative Christian:[47],

others would add nuance and qualification:[48].

Gay rights writer e.g. would say conservative Christian [49],

some journalists would say Conservative Christian:[50].

The main statements of the AFA are that they are for traditional family values:[51] (it’s the AFA not the ACA).

Wikipedia has info on conservative Christian:[52] which uses the synonym of “Traditional Christian”. I am all for keeping the issue out of the first line altogether and it should not be what the AFA "is" according to Wikipedia as its debatable. Beyond I would say that that all POVs can be properly sourced and attributed. Hal Cross 03:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

question - Hal, what is your view on the difference between "conservative" and "traditional", i'm not following your argument. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

state here (in short) other current, article material issues i've missed

note: i'm not going into revert issues, only resolving the versions conflict. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well a lot of the material so far is from the AFA website [53], and the complaint is that the material should be struck off the article on the basis that it is not correct according to the views of the objecting editors. The AFA journal [54] is also used in the article and deleted with the same complaints as the above [55]. There are other sources I have been using [56][57] [58]but they also tend to get deleted for the same reasons. Hopefully I will be allowed to present the other sourced information that I have been collecting. As far as I know, the material is verifiable and can reliably be said to be the views of the AFA or members of the AFA. I think that covers everything. I'll keep my eyes open though. Hal Cross 16:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

please take the time to fill in the refs for the previous subsection. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I've taken a couple of weeks off from editing this article, to give myself a fresh perspective. It's always interesting to come back and see the article as a whole rather than as a sequence of reversions. There seems to me to be two main things wrong with the article as it stands (this revision):

The section on the "homosexual agenda" has too much irrelevant material detailing the impending slide of society into orgies of pedophilia, sadomasochism and bestiality. The section is written as a thin veneer of neutrality around the AFA's POV, and really needs to be completely rewritten (which normally I would just do, but it seems inadvisable in the current climate).

The article as a whole has too many direct quotes. This is an attempt to avoid historical POV accusations, but I think that from the reader's perspective too much of the article is quoted and not enough is, well, encylopedia material.

Anyway, that's my view through refreshed eyes. Orpheus 02:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the problems you have stated above need to be corrected on the article. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 03:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Its natural that there will be resistance, especially from interested parties and vandals, to the sourced information that is in the homosexual agenda section as it is a current controversy. However, as Wikipedia editors, we are supposed to allow all relevant and verifiable views, the AFA states they are about decency and the place such activities (pedophilia, bestiality etc) as indecent, and their chief concern over what they see as the homosexual agenda (rather than homosexuality), is that it will lead to an increased incidence of pedophilia, bestiality and so on. Its a fact that it is their view, so it is appropriate. If editors keep deleting information with the claim that it is unreliable, is too specific, or if there is a squabble over the wording, then of course quotes will be probably be placed as they have. Hal Cross 06:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hanson ref

I made a change [67] to the Hansen information as it seemed to be incorrect [68] . Orpheus, I believe this is the same sort of problem with other parts of this article, such as the issues the AFA are concened about [69]. You may want it to say "abolish the NEA" but in fact the ref says prevent the NEA from getting funding. The AFA ref does not say Anti-abortion we are against abortion. Its says pro-life, and that is a broader set of issues involving a selection of concerns. Please try to allow all the main issues to be presented accurately. Hal Cross 03:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I changed eradicate (which has been there since the dawn of time with no objection from you) to abolish - purely a grammatical thing. If they did just lobby to have the funding increase denied, then that's what the article should say. I'm not entirely sure how this relates to abortion. Orpheus 04:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

On re-reading the article, the following quote springs out: 'The AFA's Web site boasts, "Since the AFA began asking Congress to eliminate funding for the NEA, the agency's funds have been reduced to $100 million per year."' So if the AFA is asking Congress to eliminate funding for the NEA, that's what the Wikipedia article should say. Duly amended. Orpheus 04:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with stating what is in the source. What is problematic is CMMK's insistence on removing the reasons behind the AFA's actions according to source [70]. Hal Cross 06:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Issues that the AFA state they are concerned about

Hello CMMK. You removed this information again without any discussion on this talkpage [71]. You made no attempt to adjust the information if it needed it, you simply deleted. Your constant deletions are highly unconstructive, and go against the WP recommendation to alter, rather than to delete. I believe your actions are quite dismissive considering the size of the information, and how long it has stood in the article. You stated in the edit summary that the information is OR. Please tell me which part you think is OR, and if it is, then we can discuss changing it so that it is not. Hal Cross 08:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is the information:

The issues [72] the AFA are concerned about are:

The Church in America: AFA emphasizes the benefits of attendance at church to encourage community, and discourages televised religion.

Culture and society: AFA encourages the consideration of mentorship and morality in culture.

Education: The AFA is concerned about maintaining and enhancing Christian values in education.

Entertainment industry: The AFA sees the entertainment industry as playing, "a major role in the decline of those values on which our country was founded and which keep a society and its families strong and healthy."^[1]

Marriage and family: AFA emphasizes the need for what it considers strong family values, and responsible parenting skills.

Gambling: AFA views gambling as an "indecent” influence in American culture.

"Homosexual agenda:" AFA believes what they refer to as the homosexual agenda, will lead to excessive social and economic costs, and will cause discrimination against people of any religion that does not agree with equal rights for homosexuals.

Money and finance: The AFA provides information on its website about avoiding debt problems, particularly aimed at families with children.

Pornography: The AFA is actively involved in the debate over pornography, in particular pornography on the internet and mature content in television programs and other media. Specifically, the AFA are concerned about obscenity issues, the rise of online pornography and the possible consequences to marriage, the family, and increases in crime and pedophilia[73].

Pro-life: The AFA is strongly pro-life and publishes information on what they view as "the infant's struggle to live", organizations that offer pro-life sexuality resources, what they see as the "callousness of abortion", and reporting on the killing of healthy newborn babies for stem cell research, [74].

Hal Cross 09:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Every statement except "The AFA sees the entertainment industry as playing, "a major role in the decline of those values on which our country was founded and which keep a society and its families strong and healthy.^[1]" is unsourced and therefore a violation of WP:OR.—Christopher Mann McKay^talk 11:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

CMMK, all information is from the issues sections of the AFA website. There's no OR there at all to my knowledge: [75]. I have no problem at all with attaching each separate page link to each issue. The Pro-Life issue is attributed more specifically, as is the pornography issue, which is attributed to the AFA journal itself. For example, I could take the "AFA emphasizes the benefits of attendance at church to encourage community, and discourages televised religion" and turn it into "AFA emphasizes attendance at church to encourage community, and discourages televised religion". On reflection that could possibly be a more neutral phrasing of the issue, but its supported by the link as a view of the AFA. Do you have any other suggestions on this method of dealing with your objections? Hal Cross 13:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There's two problems with what you posted. Firstly, in an article style sense it's a disaster - a big bolded list of items dominating the whole article doesn't fit with the style Wikipedia aims for (read WP:MOS if you want to find out why). Secondly, the content of the list is incredibly biased and there's no attempt at neutrality. When you take it directly from the AFA's own website, that's inevitable. Adding the fig leaf of "what they view as" doesn't make it neutral. Orpheus 04:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

As a proposal for resolving this, I think that we should pick the two or three most important (to the AFA) issues and describe them in the "Beliefs and goals" paragraph. Then add a sentence at the end saying that the AFA care about more stuff, and here's the link to go to if you want to find out what that is. My view after reading their website is that entertainment, particularly television, and homosexuality are by far the two biggest issues to them. Orpheus 04:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I am open to a variety of clear formats for these key views and issues to be presented. Repeatedly deleting the information outright isn't one of the solutions I had in mind. Picking two or three will probably involve OR. The broad views of the AFA should be presented. This section of the NPOV tutorial seems to apply [76]. The AFA used to be named using the Decency term. And now it is the American Family Association. Their main concern is the bad effects of any type of what they see as indecency on the family and society. As such their views should not be narrowed into - anti abortion, homophobia, Conservative Christian as you have been doing e.g. [77]. There are a broad range of views that can be presented to make the article more neutral and encyclopedic. All relevant views should be allowed. There is a criticism section and that seems to be the way criticism is added to this article. I have no problem with criticism being added to other areas. As a Wikipedia editor, I am supposed to allow all relevant views. To my knowledge I have never removed any appropriately sourced and relevant critical views. Hal Cross 08:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Removing the bold tags from the list doesn't change the problem that you've created what is effectively a sitemap for the AFA's website. This is an encyclopedia article, it needs to read like one. Orpheus 05:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Orpheus, consistent with your and CMMK's long history of impatiently deleting information rather than adjusting it, you have now made it more difficult for other editors to add information from other sources to each view. I wrote very clearly in the edit summary that more information is to come. I dealt with all the objections you made above, and made more comments. You made plenty of comments on my userpage, but made no reply about this section, so I made the adjustment. You have now restricted the views of the AFA in that section. This section of the NPOV tutorial applies [78]. Please read it carefully. Hal Cross 07:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Outdent. CMMK made this adjustment [79]. Actually it involved lots of deletion, disregard for source language, POV pushing, commentary, use of biased language, and restriction of the AFA views, but I am open to the configuration (number of sub-titles) presented as long as all the relevant views are presented. Hal Cross 07:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the information I removed was not supported by valid citations; I did nothing to push any POV; and I used no commentary or biased language. It is irreverent anyways. I agree with Orpheus, in that Wikipedia is not a "sitemap for the AFA's website". Also, Wikipedia is not for listing every single view the AFA holds; I have explained before diff. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 17:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, CMMK, here is your actual edit: [80]. What we have here is:

1. you removed the AFA view that a community church congregation has benefits.
2 You also removed the issue of the AFA being interested in improving morality as a culture.
3You removed the AFA concerns about gambling as what they see as an indecent influence.
4 You removed the issue about homosexual agenda, which of course is one of their key issues of concern which ties a lot of other issues together with it.
5 They say pro-life, you say Anti-abortion. Now which is quoting their view, and which is adding anti-AFA commentary?
6 You also removed important information on why they are pro-life and specific areas they tend to focus upon.

I honestly don’t know how many infractions of Wikipedia policies and recommendations you made there, but you certainly don’t seem to be allowing all relevant views into the article. It is a fact that the AFA are concerned about those issues and there are references all over the article to say that they are concerned about such issues. Thus, those issues should be stated clearly. This is an article about the AFA. Somewhere there should be a concise section on exactly what sort of things the AFA are concerned about. This is an encyclopedia so it’s pretty much inevitable, whether you patiently allow editors to constructively add references to the article directly, or whether you obstruct such gradual editing, the information will be presented. Hal Cross 11:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't know why you falsely accuse me of violation policy or guidelines. Your citations did not back your references, so I removed them in accordance with WP:VER. Also, stating anti-abortion because it is more specific to the AFA's views is not "adding anti-AFA commentary"; anti-abortion was the only properly sourced view in relation to pro-life. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 20:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm just showing you and others with what you actually did, which seems to be quite different from what you are saying. Here is the link: [81]. You removed the views that I stated above, plus the link includes a range of pro-life issues [82], and they are stated as pro-life in the source, in big bold letters above the articles linked. How do you explain such a glaring discrepancy between your statements and your actions? Hal Cross 02:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I have already answered your questions in previous posts; I will not repeat myself. How do you explain such a glaring discrepancy between your statements and Wikipedia policy/proper presentation of the article in an encyclopedic manor? —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 02:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

CMMK, I have been working consistently using reliable sources, to present an article that will reach featured article status, e.g. [83]. The views and beliefs of Islam, for example have been allowed in full with reference to what Islam believers state are their beliefs. In stark contrast, you have been removing the reliably sourced and stated views and beliefs of AFA members and writers that refer specifically to the homosexual agenda, pedophilia, and other issues. Please allow all relevant views into the article. Your, and Orpheus' continued refusal to allow such relevant views is acting totally against NPOV policies and guidelines [84][85]. Hal Cross 04:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed nothing that was "reliably sourced" and I have not violated WP:NPOV. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 06:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

CMMK, I will explain to you yet more clearly: [86] you removed the stated AFA views about the homosexual agenda from the section: [87]. There are reliable sources supporting that view in the links and refs section. But now the beliefs and goals section says nothing about the homosexual agenda, which is a core part of the goals of the AFA. Concise is one thing, but suppressing key views is unacceptable. In terms of NPOV, I repeat, look at the NPOV tutorial section on Information Suppression; [88] "It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability.". You are not allowing those core views to be heard in the correct context. CMMK, and Orpheus. Please allow relevant views to be heard in full. Hal Cross 07:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Once again, everything I removed was without a valid citation and I have not violated WP:NPOV. Also, It does not matter if the AFA beliefs and goals section has references to the homosexual agenda, as there is an entire section devoted to the homosexual agenda on this article. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 18:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

CMMK, you are wrong to remove the information. It was reliably sourced. The information in the beliefs and goals section is now unbalanced. It does not show the beliefs and goals clearly at all. I will clear that up. I have also added the main concerns of the AFA to the lead section as per WP:LEAD. Its not necessary to add citations to each and every fact in the lead section, but now you have demanded it, I added them. [89].Hal Cross 04:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I was not "wrong to remove the information." It was not "reliably sourced." I don't appreciate you making repeatedly false accusations about me. Please stop this rude behavior. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 05:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not being rude at all. OK, first explain to me briefly why you think the AFA website is not a reliable source for presenting the views of the AFA? Hal Cross 06:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Why? I did not remove the statements because they are from the AFA's web site. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 07:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

So perhaps you could try out the helpful WP editor thing and clarify what you meant. Why did you remove them?Hal Cross 07:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I explained this before, on 13:16, 8 September 2007, but I'm so nice I'll copy and paste it for you: "you need to link to specific articles and not a general page that has links to an array of different articles." This isn't the only problem with your edits of course, but it is a major flaw and unquestionable reason to remove your statements. I have no more to dicuss with you; everything has been said in previous posts.—Christopher Mann McKay^talk 08:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well thats no reason to delete, when adjusting it is extremely easy. I'll do the honors. Hal Cross 08:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFC

I am planning to send this to a Request for Comment; but I'm unsure whether this should be under the Religion and Philosophy or the Politics section. WAVY 10 14:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that's an over-reaction. This *should* be a simple content dispute. For example, the homophobia category was resolved in a fairly short time by dealing with it in a reasonable fashion, with reasonable people. I'm sure that we can do the same with the rest of the article issues. Orpheus 03:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I'd leave it to Wavy 10 to decide. I do believe that resolution was not followed through at all though. This was the general proposal to avoid controversial categories [90], which was implemented for a while [91]. Then user Kookoo Star [92] appeared for the first time and started adding the homophobia category back [93], and Orpheus and CMMK then started adding it whenever it was removed e.g. [94][95].I'm all for any kind of non-involved outside input. Hal Cross 04:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

See, this is exactly the problem that prevents us resolving content disputes on this page. You've got two things wrong. First, there was never consensus to avoid "controversial" categories, that's a small section of WP:CAT that you're turning into holy writ. Second, that category isn't controversial in the policy sense anyway. A disagreement doesn't make it controversial. Apart from that, you've got no reasons for removing the category. The category was removed last time because it was a subcategory of Category:Discrimination, and having a subcat and parent cat in the same article isn't a good idea. When the parent category was removed, there was no reason not to put the subcategory back in.

I have no problem with a request for comment, especially if it focuses a bit of attention on your style of collaboration. Orpheus 04:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Orpheus, I am not turning recommendations into holy writ, and I am sure others would discourage your use of such a religious exaggeration in this situation. As I have explained to you before, I am following recommendations on controversial categories [96] in order that NPOV policy is not circumvented. It has nothing to do with disagreement. It has already been explained to you multiple times, the controversy is in the literature and it is verifiable on the Web. Some say the AFA is homophobic, and others say it is not, and I am absolutely not talking about Wikipedia editors. I believe most WP editors would prefer that you do not personalize issues so much, especially on such an article.

You said that the removal of discrimination as a category was why you placed the category back in. But there was no consensus on that. It was extremely clear from the long term category dispute, and from the discussion that homophobia is such a controversial category that it could be legitimately removed from the article at any time, and you were free to a list instead in order that NPOV policy is not circumvented. You have said that we are removing the homophobia category because of our disagreements. The evidence seems to point to your refusal to even acknowledge the explanation that the controversy is in the literature. Ignoring that repeated explanation as you have just done, is quite uncooperative. I would also like feedback on my "style" of collaboration and editing, and especially would like some advice on how to handle this particular long standing problematic situation. Hal Cross 06:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Just as a relevant aside, it seems to me that CMMK has made hardening and narrowing changes to the categorization recommendations: [97]. Something being uncontroversial requires considered and broad editor input and is not exactly the same as the narrow stipulation of requiring sources to prove that it is controversial. Clearly the issue is more complex than that [98], as evidenced by comments by a discussing editor who also used Homophobia as a direct example of a controversial category. Hal Cross 07:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Hal Cross 07:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Policy pages are very carefully watched, and that edit was made weeks ago. If the community agreed with you, it would have been changed back by now. It's not like it slipped under the radar - the edit was accompanied by an explicit "I changed this" notice on the talk page. The reason the other editor (who agreed with CMMK, just not necessarily his exact wording) used homophobia as an example is because CMMK mentioned it as the *explicit reason* for making the change.

Your previous comment is wrong both in premise and logic in many places, but because it contains nothing that has not been said by you and refuted by others many, many times already there is little point in going through it in detail. Orpheus 07:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm just stating what has been going on, and reporting what the discussing editors on the categorization article have said about categorization and homophobia. I myself have not made any suggestions or changes to the categorization recommendations, only followed them. Your discouragement of such investigation is noted. Hal Cross 07:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

New York Times source

Regarding: "Calvin Klein bows to campaign critics". New York Times. 1999-02-19

Please provide the author and page number of the article. Thank you.—Christopher Mann McKay^talk 05:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The specific author is: The Globe and Mail. Toronto, Ont.: Feb 19, 1999. pg. A.3 New York Times Service. ISSN 03190714 Hal Cross 06:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of a large section of AFA views especially concerning homosexual agenda and pedophilia

Hello Orpheus. You removed a large section here [99] which of course means that you have suppressed those sourced views once again. To my knowledge all objections, no matter how petty, have been answered. Your edit summary is entirely unhelpful. If you would like to explain exactly which parts you consider OR, or which have been unanswered, then reply here or on my talkpage. Hal Cross 11:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Hal Cross 11:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is suppressing anything, which has been explained over and over again on this talk page.
The material you have added is unnecessary for an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a press release, or a sitemap, or a detailed directory of every view the AFA has ever held. This has been explained over and over again on this talk page.
The important bits of what you added are already in the article. This has been explained over and over again on this talk page.
As you are apparently not ready to follow consensus, and nobody else supports your view, it seems fruitless to discuss this for another hundred kilobytes. Therefore I don't see the point in replying further to you unless you come up new reasons that haven't been rejected by other active editors on the page (preferably with less accusations and insinuations this time).

Orpheus 18:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)