Talk:American Family Association/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Removal of AFA views from the article

Orpheus, I refer to this link that was just archived by CMMK [1]. You two have not been explaining over and over, you have been repeatedly dismissing sourced views. The "not a press release, detailed directory" objection simply doesn't hold. There is no policy on those points, and concisely presented sourced views do not apply. Summary style is WP style. I have explained that the important parts of what you keep deleting are simply deleted from the article. So the views are being suppressed. Two editors repeatedly deleting and dismissing reliable sources and discussion does not mean consensus. I am totally willing to apply for outside input on this matter and therefore I am totally willing to listen to Wikipedia community input. You can keep trying to dismiss my comments if you like, but its not going to stop me from applying Wikipedia policies to the article. I am not insinuating anything, I am clearly presenting you with the NPOV tutorial section on Information Suppression [2] Hal Cross 02:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Hal Cross 02:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I am totally willing to apply for outside input on this matter and therefore I am totally willing to listen to Wikipedia community input.

Good - please do so.

I am not insinuating anything, I am clearly presenting you

That would be an accusation then. There's plenty of insinuation in the other comments, and I for one am sick of both. There is no information suppression because the information you are trying to add is either already in the article or easily accessible from the issues link provided (linked as "The AFA raises and pursues these and other[12] issues").

Orpheus 07:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, Orpheus, I will just have to explain it to you again. The first line states "A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. Information can be cited that supports one view while some important information that opposes it is omitted or even deleted.". You are introducing bias by deleting the reliably sourced information presented in the correct context [3]. Notice I have not deleted any reliably sourced criticism of the AFA. Not one. You have been deleting repeatedly for a long time. The last line states "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 repeatedly deleting such information and thus preventing NPOV from being allowed. All relevant views should be allowed "summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability". The views are relevant to the beliefs and goals of the AFA and they should be presented without suppression. Please stop deleting such information from the article. The information is necessary to create an article that comes closer to featured article status. Hal Cross 07:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

More comprehensive belief section

In my effort to bring the article closer to featured article status, using the Islam article as an exemplar, I have added more belief related information to the belief and goal section [4]. Please offer input or suggestions here. Hal Cross 11:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Orpheus. You just deleted the new and more comprehensive belief section [5]. Now I am not going to say your actions are dismissive again, but you did rather say that it had been discussed "per lengthy talk page discussion" in your edit summary. Now I think you would have to admit that is not entirely accurate. Firstly there is more information there, and it is in a very different context. None of those things have ever been discussed. Furthermore, as per usual, and similar to CMMK's edit summary comments, you do not make adjustments, you simply delete without any suggestions on how to improve or adjust. Perhaps you would like to come back to the land of the living in terms of Wikipedia talkpage discussion? Or not! Hal Cross 16:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[6], [7] and [8]. Orpheus 17:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Orpheus, posting such links isn't helping anyone. All objections have been dealt with, and new material is presented. This version [9] is far more encyclopedic than the one you keep insisting upon [10]. Narrowing the views and suppressing their reasoning really is against NPOV policies. You are really not helping the article move towards featured article status. Please refrain from dismissing sourced relevant views, and please stop dismissing my efforts to accommodate NPOV policies. Hal Cross 19:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

New material

Regarding the new material posted:

• The Yahoo "action alert" is years out of date (2001 - hardly current). At best it should go in former (unsuccessful) boycotts, but we don't really need a comprehensive list of every boycott ever suggested by the AFA.
• The research by Paul Cameron is not published in a reputable, reliable academic journal and is therefore not a reliable source in this context. Additionally, Paul Cameron is a thoroughly discredited former psychologist who has been expelled by the American Psychological Association and censured by four professional organisations and a federal court. The Freund & Watson link does not suppport what you have written in the text.
• The bit about the AFA being under attack by the "homosexual community" is a slanted version of what's already in the article and is unnecessary.

Orpheus 07:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The Yahoo information is supported by multiple citations. The Research by Cameron is what the AFA uses to support their views, Freund and Watson is also used by the AFA to support their beliefs. Yes the AFA has their own slant on criticism of themselves and that is their view. Removal of such reliably sourced views results in such relevant views being suppressed and thus bias is introduced to the article [11]. I am allowing all relevant views. You have disallowed specific AFA views giving the reason that the AFA is slanted. Wikipedia acknowledges that all have their viewpoint. I refer to you the basic point of NPOV, a simple formulation [12]. I also urge you towards an article that is closer to a featured article status. That involves adding an encyclopedic level of information to the article, rather than restricting it or narrowing it in information towards any particular bias. I have been adding information that comes from the beliefs of the AFA according to reliable sources. Their beliefs and reasoning needs to be presented in full if NPOV is to be allowed. You seem to be perpetually disallowing such information against the basic goals of Wikipedia - to present encyclopedic articles. I have not once removed or disallowed any reliably sourced critical information. In fact I have just added critical information. Please go back to NPOV policies, re-read and come back to this article with a fully informative encyclopedic article in mind. Hal Cross 09:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Take your own advise and try to write "an article that is closer to a featured article status." Maybe you should read WP:IA and WP:FACR because your edits are not moving the article "closer to a featured article status." You continue to ignore any constructive criticism of your in inappropriate edits and you continue to accuse others of policy violations when they have not violated any policy; this is also very bothersome. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 02:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If you care to give any specifics on your objections, rather than dismissively delete, I think your comment above may mean something. As it is your comment just looks like smoke. Please offer constructive comments on the specifics of the material rather than me or your feelings about WP editing. I refer to your comments and your deletions and not to you. Hal Cross 03:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Your "WP editing" is directly related "to your comments and your deletions," which are made by you...—Christopher Mann McKay^talk 03:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

CMMK your comment is unconstructive. You have still not explained your objections to the sourced material in question. For example, please explain why you object to the sourced and supported AFA views on the link between homosexuality and pedophilia being presented into the article. Hal Cross 10:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedic information; Beliefs and Goals

Orpheus. You have once again removed this information from the beliefs and goals section [13].To my knowledge it is all reliably sourced, adds information to the article and is relevant to beliefs and goals. Despite your edit summary, your reasons for removing the information are still totally unclear. Please explain your reasons for removing each piece of information in turn. Hal Cross 02:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Clearly there is a need to improve the beliefs and goals section. What are your suggestions? Hal Cross 11:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've already made them, below. Orpheus 15:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

AFA and Boycotts

This information was removed from the article: [14] [15]. That’s a lot of information and a lot of explanation of AFA views. Removing the information creates a POV fork. Again it suppresses the views of the AFA for specific issues. I see nothing wrong with re-organizing or adding to it, but removing it suppresses encyclopedic information about the views of the AFA.

Also, this information is relevant to the boycotts section: The AFA have expressed concern that Yahoo is encouraging pedophilia by providing sites that contain sexually explicit pictures of children (PR Newswire 2001) The AFA's are running a petition drive urging Yahoo! to eliminate all such pornography from its site[16]. Orpheus removed it saying its too old. The AFA is still here, Yahoo is still here, and Yahoo are still selling porn of all descriptions and it is still being viewed by pedophiles, homosexuals or any other category of porn viewer. It’s a relevant addition to the boycotts section, is current and ongoing. Feel free to offer any reason for why you don't want this information in the article. Hal Cross 02:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

What are your suggestions on the Yahoo issue? Hal Cross 11:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Same as they were the first time - it's not as notable as some of the other boycotts, so it's not a high priority to keep. They could have equally said the same thing about Google, or Comcast, or AOL, or Joe's Fish Shack, or any other company with a public ftp or web server that's been used to host porn. Orpheus 15:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

AFA responses to Katrina

CMMK, you added this to the article; [17]. Do you have the actual press release from the AFA in this regard? Also, I am just wondering the sort of bias the statement has. To me it looks quite one sided. What do you think? Hal Cross 02:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

What are your suggestions on how to improve this piece of information? Hal Cross 11:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Freund, K. & Watson, Vitagliano

CMMK, you removed this multiple sourced view [18]. Please explain why you removed it? Hal Cross 03:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it not obivous? In addition to what Orpheus stated, Wikipedia is NOT a place to reference faulty studies just because the AFA journal did a news story on it. It has no relevance... —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 03:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Its an AFA view and you are not supposed to edit with reference to your OR on the correctness of the study. If you disagree that men seeking and engaging in sexual activities with boys is not a sort of homosexual behavior, I think the vast majority of the world would disagree with you. Its the sourced view that counts, rather than mine or your's. Its an encyclopedic fact and relevant to the homosexual agenda. Its a specific view from the AFA and is clearly stated. Its also neutrally stated and given with due context. Hal Cross 03:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Category dispute

The category dispute, especially concerning the homophobia category, is still ongoing. I added the category disputed tag and kept removal to a minimum so that the rest of the article could be improved. The dispute continues, as far as I am concerned the homophobia category is:

• Accusatory in this case
• Pejorative in this case
• Totally unbalanced. Its applied with only one particular view in mind
• Circumvents NPOV policy specifically because it cannot be annotated
• Lists are a much more appropriate alternative

Therefore, the category should be removed. Hal Cross 03:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody other than Hal Cross think this? The proposed solution is here: Talk:American Family Association/Archive 3#Category. Comment here if you agree or disagree with it. Orpheus 10:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree obviously. Orpheus 10:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. The solution here is to remove inappropriate categories. There is no point switching one inappropriate category with another inappropriate category. The pedophilia category is more relevant and appropriate than both the homophobia ones. Not that I am offering it as a solution, just that the homophobia and homophobic violence cats are totally out of order here, Hal Cross 11:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Nobody is suggesting Category:Homophobic violence for this article. Nobody has ever suggested that category for this article. That category was specifically created so that the American Family Association was not associated with organisations engaging in homophobic violence. It shows a remarkable lack of reading comprehension on your part that you are still suggesting that, after being corrected several times. Orpheus 12:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Nobody else has come along to support your view, Hal, so unless someone does in the near future I'll remove the disputed category tag from the article. Orpheus 14:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

No need Orpheus. Cheeser1 has just removed it for you [19] yet the dispute continues.

The category is applied in an accusational way, its controverted, its not self evident at all because conservative Christians mostly believe that homosexual behavior is a sin yet those articles are not labeled with the homophobia category at all. The application of the category means that NPOV is not satisfied regarding that issue. Lists have always been offered as an alternative. But happily, I will have some more information related to this matter to add to the article. Hal Cross 18:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hal, not it's not. The use of a category that you don't think is fair or true doesn't make it accusatory or nonNPOV. Lists are not alternatives to categories - they function in entirely different ways and preclude one another. Can we not call the KKK a racist organization now either?? Your argument is nonsense. It's only an accusation if you choose to take it as one, and it's only nonNPOV if it's an accusation. --Cheeser1 01:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser1. With respect, there are bound to be many editors who will disagree with you. I am only one of them. Hal Cross 02:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy - it doesn't matter how many people disagree with me, even hypothetically. Like I've already said, there are verifiable characterizations of this group as homophobic, provided by reliable sources. You haven't provided a single reason why we can't include it: it's not an accusation, it's a verifiable statement about the group. Homophobia is defined as "the fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or LGBT people." It is verifiable that the AFA has an anti-gay agenda and set of beliefs (e.g. the SPLC, an authority on discrimination in the US). What more could you ask for? --Cheeser1 03:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The category is not self-evident. It adds nothing to the understanding of homophobia. Therefore according to WP recommendations on categorization, it can be removed. Hal Cross 04:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Self-evidence is not what is required. Verifiability is. We have that. It's also not here to "add ... to the understanding of homophobia." It's here to categorize this article. It does so. Please stop alluding to nonexistent "WP recommendations." --Cheeser1 04:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Lead section improvements

I made some changes to the lead section as per WP:LEAD. [20]. The article main body seems to be under attack specifically from some editors who are persistently removing the sourced views of the AFA. So I'm improving the lead as per [21] "relative emphasis in the lead should not reflect the body if the body is haphazard or missing critical information.". Feel free to discuss here Hal Cross 04:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to make a suggestion. Hal Cross 11:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Already did, below. Orpheus 15:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

POV forking

Orpheus and CMMK. You keep deleting the section on boycotts including the reasoning for those boycotts [22]. That creates a POV fork. Here is the relevant section [23]. It states:

• A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article.

You have been removing the information in a way that hides AFA viewpoints for why they are boycotting those particular companies. I have no problem at all with re-arranging the a viewpoints to make them more concise and information rich. But repeatedly removing them from the article is unacceptable POV pushing. Please stop deleting the sourced views of the AFA. Hal Cross 12:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Hal Cross 13:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a list of boycotts. The article doesn't need to have a list of every single boycott the AFA has ever been involved in. It's fine to move that list to a sub-article which is linked using the main template. A POV fork is where you end up with two articles presenting different sides of an issue. That is not the case here. Orpheus 15:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a sub-article isn't that bad an idea. I may create it if for no other reason to cease this latest squabble here. WAVY 10 15:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Wavy 10. I really have no objection to sub-articles or whatever as long as the views are presented clearly and encyclopedically. I am open to any of your suggestions and would really like some advice on how to proceed. Hal Cross 15:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Orpheus, you are dismissing WP regulations. Read it again, its just above in this section just a few paragraphs up next to the bullet point. Removing the large portion of the section is an attempt to evade NPOV policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Sure you can have the other article and I can fill it out with more details about why the AFA has boycotted those companies. But the specific views about specific companies and why they are boycotted have to be present in the main article itself, otherwise AFA views are suppressed. I can see a lot of ways to make that section richer and I will do that no matter how many times you try to remove the views of the AFA. Deleting those views is completely unacceptable, just as it says above. It removes encyclopedic information about the subject. It impoverishes the article. It weakens the knowledge content of the article. It disinforms the reader about specific views of the AFA. I would like to remind you yet again as you don't seem to have grasped this basic fact about encyclopedic editing on Wikipedia; All relevant views are to be presented. I am allowing all relevant views. Please watch more carefully and learn from me and other concerned Wikipedia editors and allow all relevant views. This point is really very important and I hope you will try your very best to understand at least this elementary concept fully before you make any more edits or comments on Wikipedia. I will be extremely happy to make that boycott section more concise and encyclopedic. I can present the rationales for why the AFA decided to boycott certain groups of companies very very clearly. There seems to be a lot of room for that. I doubt whether an anti-AFA editor will like the result though. Never mind, Wikipedia is not about what we like. Its about making a good encyclopedia. Hal Cross 15:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Wavy 10, there is no need for two sub-sections on boycotts; one is sufficient. Having two sub-articles for boycotts would not "cease this latest squabble here." I have no idea what you meant by such a strange comment. Please elaborate. (diff) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher Mann McKay (talk • contribs) 23:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, having two sub-articles on boycotts really would be a POV fork! I don't think that's what WAVY10 was suggesting though - looks like a misunderstanding to me. It's an easy mistake to make with all the reverting going on. Orpheus 00:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Orpheus and CMMK. Some editors are doing their best to solve problems here. Your constant removal of relevant views requires that certain adjustments be made to the information and structure of presentation. As far as I can see, it looks like AFA views will inevitably be presented far more clearly than some would like. But thats what happens when extreme demands are made. If you want extra support for a particular view, more support and clarity will be found. As it is, the article is growing more clear and information rich in terms of AFA views, and I know its a real shocker, but the information is becoming more and more solidly supported, which makes deletionism all the more wrong. The facts about the homosexual agenda, obscenity, pedophilia, and the link between homosexuality and child molestation are not easy to countenance for some people. Those items will probably be removed by vandals and POV pushers for as long as this article exists. But Wikipedia has mechanisms and protections that can deal with any such agenda. And I am working on making such trouble as positive in outcome as possible. Hal Cross 02:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquette

Please see Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Hal Cross and comment if you feel the urge. Orpheus 09:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, any feedback on how to better constructively edit here will be much appreciated. Hal Cross 10:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Activism sub-section: Homophobia

What is wrong with using "Homophobia" as the section title? I see a NPOV violation in having "Accusations of homophobia," because "accuse" means to "charge with a fault or offense"[24], so having "accusations" implies the AFA's homophobic views and actions are wrong or faulty. Homophobia, which means "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals"[25] is used to describe the AFA actions for that sub-section, as all the info in that sub-section is related to homophobia--a neutral term that does not imply something negative. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 10:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm happy with homophobia - the change I made was an attempt to come down the middle instead. "First amendment rights" is too much of a euphemism. Orpheus 11:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes having accusations does imply that anti-AFA views are faulty. Its inappropriate. So is using the term Homophobia. It implies that the AFA are homophobic. Stick with specifics. The specific controversy is over first amendment rights, from all POVs. Hal Cross 12:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't. The specific controversy mentioned is a private organisation labelling the AFA as intolerant for their opinions on gay rights. If it was the government telling them to put a cork in it, then it would be a first amendment issue. The first amendment doesn't apply to relations between private parties. Orpheus 13:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm talking about the CyberPatrol and SPLC parts of that section. The part about the SF city council is arguably first-amendment related, although the trial judge disagreed. Orpheus 13:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the AFA v. SF reference be moved to the "Legal activism" section? Although SF was criticizing AFA, the reference is mainly dealing with legal activism by the AFA. Any objections to moving the AFA v. SF reference? —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 17:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good solution to me - they initiated it, after all, so although it is controversy, it's arguably activism rather than criticism. Orpheus 17:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

merge: List of American Family Association boycotts

These boycotts are already listed in this article. The content could easily be integrated into what is now a relatively small section. Some of the content may not be notable or require inclusion, and other parts are repeated here, so it should fill out the section nicely, instead of breaking it up unnecessarily. --Cheeser1 18:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The main reason I'm in favour of a separate article is that it lets you list more boycotts and be less discriminate over which ones you include. I don't think that's necessarily a good thing, however! It was more a way to cut the Gordian knot of this talk page debate. If we can get back to a reasonable discussion over what's notable enough for the article and what isn't, then I'll be wholeheartedly in favour of merging it back in. On the other hand, if we're just going to end up with a comprehensive list of every boycott ever proposed, under the umbrella of not "suppressing" information, then it's better in a separate article. Personally I would prefer the former. Orpheus 18:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for making concise sections. There is definitely a way to condense the information by grouping it correctly and really clearly. I was never into huge lists of anything. The only reason for restoring the list before was so I could work on making it concise, total deletionism being completely unnecessary as usual. Hal Cross 19:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely Orpheus, I agree. However, we do not need such a comprehensive list. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, we need not keep records of all events. Instead, we are attempting to write an article about the AFA. We need not include the minutes of their meetings, lists of their protests, logs of their member roster, or things like that. Certainly, the boycotts can be mentioned, and those that have elicited significant media coverage can be mentioned - and they can be mentioned here, not in a laundry-list of boycotts. --Cheeser1 19:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm in favor of making the boycotts section/article shorter; however, I think if we are going to list the boycotts, then we need to list the reasons why the AFA boycotted the organizations, which makes it very difficult to make the information concise. This is why I created the separate list article and summarized the list article on the Boycotts section of this article. I believe this is the best route, but I’m open to other suggestions on how to deal with this issue. I think merging the list (in it’s current form) back into the article is a bad idea, because the section would be too long (and can potentially become a lot longer) and if sections are too long they should have their own article. We would need to shorten the article then merge it, if that is the consensus. As for notability, if the boycotts are covered by multiple reliable sources, then I don't see a reason to exclude any of them. If there is a notability issue with having a separate boycotts article, then we should nominate it for WP:AfD and get broader input on the issues instead of making that decision on this talk page. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 19:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No, CMMK, giving rationales for the boycotts will make them all the more concise as its a type of grouping. It may also cause conflict though, because those rationales seem to be the main "objectionable" content of the list of boycotts. Wikipedia process may be able to handle it. I trust WP will make maintaining such information far easier when its rules have evolved after a few years. Hal Cross 20:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

An AfD is not how one elicits comments from the wider community (in fact, talking on the talk page is how one does that - an RfC might be necessary, but AfDs are not supposed to be there just to get people's opinions). Each particular boycott may not be notable - if they are notable in relation to the AFA then they should be here unless there is a huge list of notable/important boycotts. In all honesty, the details and specifics of each protest may not merit inclusion. Being mentioned on the news may be reliably sourced, but it doesn't necessarily merit inclusion. A string of unrelated or tangentially related boycotts doesn't necessarily meet WP:N, and while branching-off might save space, it doesn't change the fact that this content may not merit inclusion at all. --Cheeser1 20:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I had envisioned a concise section that explains the type of things the AFA boycotts companies for. E.g. for encouraging pedophilia, company 1, 2 3, for encouraging obscenity, 123 and for supporting the homosexual agenda 123. That could probably be done pretty concisely in a para or two and it doesn't involve removing AFA viewpoints. All relevant views can be added in the same way. Hal Cross 20:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

An AfD is how one elicits comments from the wider community for if the article should be deleted/merged; I know AfD is not for comments in general not relating to issues with deleting or merging the article. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 20:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I had envisioned a concise section that explains the type of things the AFA boycotts companies for. I don't think that's necessary at all, or a good idea. Much better to pick a few representative samples, based on notability, and then provide a link to the AFA's page that lists all their boycott efforts in case anyone wants to look them all up. Same as with the issues section - being comprehensive is not necessary. The problem with the grouping you're suggesting is that it leaves out enough information that people might get the wrong idea about individual cases, without solving the issue that there's so many boycotts it's not helpful to list every single one. Orpheus 22:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

We would need to shorten the article then merge it, if that is the consensus. I agree with that - the main difficulty as far as I see is picking which ones to include. Once we've come to a consensus on how many, then we can pick the N most notable and write a brief summary on each. That should keep the future length in check as well - if a particularly important or notable boycott comes along then it can knock the least notable one off the list. Orpheus 23:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

We should really go the other way - notability of each incident needs to be established. We can worry about how many once we figure out how many actually merit mentioning. --Cheeser1 02:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, fair point. I think the most important ones are:

* WaldenBooks, because it resulted in legal action.

* Walt Disney, because it produced a lot of media attention.

* Abercrombie & Fitch, ditto.

* Target, to tie in the Christmas stuff.

* Ford, because it's a big campaign and a big target.

* IKEA, because it's international in scope (they use the same catalogues all over the world).

Orpheus 05:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Decency related boycotts should be priority. The AFA was started as a Decency promotion interest and anything regarded as indecent is key. Thus, homosexual agenda, pedophilia, pornography related ones are priority. Thus, Yahoo, Calvin Klein, Ford. There are other first amendment related issues such as the "Holiday Trees" boycotts that do deserve mention because they add interest and perspective to the article and touch so many people. Hal Cross 05:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hal, the AFA's goals and mission statement are not criteria by which we include content in this article. --Cheeser1 03:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Orpheus - sounds good. If you want to do the merge, feel free. If not, I'll try to take care of it within a couple days. And I'd say leave the list put until we've got a solid version of the section in this article hammered out. --Cheeser1 03:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned up List of American Family Association boycotts, so I don't think it is necessary to delete any of them. The Abercrombie and Fitch boycott should have a source in addition to the AFA's web site, but that's the only issue. I don't think it is a good idea to the merge the article even though it is shorter now, because in the future, if I can find more information on their boycotts, the section will become longer and long sections should be seperate articles. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 00:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I think some of the Christmas controversy boycotts should be added to the list. What do others think? The Target boycott is notable enough; I don't know about the others. `—Christopher Mann McKay^talk 00:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

There are definitely more issues to add that according to source are significant, such as exemplified in the "Piss Christ" statue (a statue of Christ immersed in urine). It still shows a disproportionate number of homosexual agenda boycotts. The more encyclopedic arrangement would be to state the issues that the AFA are concerned about, and then present a few key boycotts, petitions, or other actions, and possibly to have the entire list of boycotts and other actions on another article. The main objection to having the boycott section removed in its entirety was that it caused a POV fork, in that it removed some of the issues the AFA were concerned about from the article, plus the reasoning for those issues. Hal Cross 03:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Look for sources. To update everyone: I've moved the stuff back into the article. I'm not sure, but I believe we're supposed to speedy-delete the list. I'll give it a few days, and if nothing happens, nom it for speedy deletion or whatever's appropriate. --Cheeser1 02:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

There are now some double references. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 03:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoops. Well, I'll see if I can find some time to clean that up. Anybody else though, feel free.--Cheeser1 15:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Selfpub compliant material and other sources

Hi Cheeser1. I think I have the information sorted out now. I just added some to the article. Please check it for appropriateness concerning the selfpub policies [26]. I'm open to all suggestions Hal Cross 03:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You've just added different self-published sources into the article, besides the AFA. This isn't an improvement, even if the text is longer or if there are more citations. --Cheeser1 03:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again Cheeser1. I'll put the other non self-pub refs in then. Hal Cross 03:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Beliefs section

Looking at the lead and the beliefs section, there seems to be a fair bit of overlap. I think we should have a paragraph, two at the most above the title page which introduces the AFA and outlines briefly what they do and what they aim for, and then no "Beliefs & Goals" section. Thoughts? Orpheus 05:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

There can be a beliefs section with a similar format to this featured article [27]. It could be more concise in parts but basically organization is what is needed. It would also help to place the beliefs encyclopedically in relation to majority Christian beliefs, just to give it appropriate context. The goals part could be joined with the boycotts section and additional prayer activities, advice about legal rights, charity, and so on, can be added also. Hal Cross 05:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Islam is a religion with 1500 years of history and a billion adherents. The AFA is an advocacy group that wants less smut and swearing on television. I think there's a bit of a difference in approach! What's notable, and encyclopedic, is what the AFA do. What they say they believe is useful background material, but it shouldn't be the main focus of the article. Where they stand in respect to mainstream Christianity is a useful set of information to add, although one would first have to define mainstream Christianity - not an easy task. Orpheus 05:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a lot to be said about AFA in relation to their mainstream Christian beliefs. That will be very easy to determine with reference to the parts of the Bible the AFA and mainstream Christian groups refer to. Its how those beliefs are associated with the decency drive that is important. Christian groups have always had guidelines for how to deal with homosexual behaviour, bestiality, pedophilia, and so on, that involve prayer, chastity, and others that involve punishment as a deterrent. So there are comparisons and contrasts that will add useful context. AFA doesn't work on physically punishing such behavior as some other religions do, the AFA beliefs tend to use the concept of loving your neighbour and prayer for deliverance instead. Its an interesting subject and should enrich the article. Hal Cross 06:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It's going to be very difficult to do that without any original research, but a comparison would be useful if you can find a well-sourced one to use. I don't really think that the AFA's views on bestiality and pedophilia are particularly notable. They're against them, like most of society, and I don't see any particular need to emphasise them in this article. Orpheus 07:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Orpheus and have attempted to make the correcting changes: diff. Any input on my edits? Any suggestions or changes? Thanks. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 06:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Orpheus, you seem to be making quite negative comments when it comes to presenting the views of the AFA. The information is all freely available on the web, and it can all be presented without any OR and without any spin. Its inevitable that the pedophilia and bestiality issues will be presented as they are key reasons for the AFA voicing opposition to the homosexual agenda. Sure, the vast majority feel the same way, but its the specific views of the AFA that need to be presented if we are to avoid information suppression [28]. I think most Wikipedia editors would see that as only fair. All relevant views and so on... Hal Cross 11:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not "inevitable" that the article has to include material on pedophilia and bestiality, and why the AFA thinks that having gay people out will inexorably lead to those things. What the AFA thinks on every issue isn't really encyclopedic - what's more important is what they do, and the opinions they hold that receive reliable third party coverage. Apart from aiming for a complete catalogue of their viewpoints, what's your reason for putting the material in? Orpheus 15:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

They are relevant views and when supported with reliable sources they explain not only what the AFA do, but they give views on reasons for why. Thats inevitable and encyclopedic.Hal Cross 16:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed mission statement of the AFA

In line with the Wikiquette recommendations of two seperate editors [29] [30], I removed the AFA mission statement. If you have anything to say about that, reply here. Hal Cross 17:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me, but as a suggestion for the talk page, I think it would be more productive to have post-WQA discussion in a new section (like this one) rather than going back and adding to older sections. Orpheus 15:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It would help if you took care to answer all questions presented, especially if the issue has been presented as a section in itself. Those questions are often highly specific, and stating you have already answered them is unhelpful when they involve new edits and adjustments that were requested by yourself in prior discussions. Attending carefully to discussion is important, especially when others are making the effort to make adjustments and answer your objections. Thank you. Hal Cross 16:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

What question in particular are you talking about? Orpheus 03:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

For example, the section on lead section improvements [31] requests discussion on those improvements, [32] that include information on the AFA’s fight against pedophilia supported by reliable mainstream source. The information was deleted by CMMK[33], without discussion. Your subsequent suggestions ignore the actual specifically sourced improvements made. Please make sure to discuss the specific suggested improvements, especially those where editors took the time to supply a source according to Wikipedia policies. Hal Cross 04:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, in that particular case it seems that you deleted the text "that promotes conservative Christian values." and didn't add anything - correct me if I'm wrong. In addition, you deleted five sources for the sentence fragment you took out. I don't quite see what you mean about the AFA's "fight against pedophilia" (a loaded term that should be avoided, by the way). Orpheus 04:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, there was also the 200,000 members claim that you added (also nothing to do with a fight against anything). You already had a third opinion on this, from Jaakobou. Orpheus 04:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Pedophilia is considered indecent, wrong, and obscene by the vast majority of people. Or would you disagree? The fact is supported in that edit by mainstream source.

I removed the part on Conservative Christian values because the first sentence of the article should really be as neutral as possible. I could have placed "Traditional Family Values" instead as it is what the AFA state, it is more true to the title "The Americal Family Association", and it covers the AFA's broader concerns. It doesn't matter how many sources you or CMMK put there to try to keep it in the first sentence of the article, and it doesn't even matter if the AFA use the term themselves. Its still politically loaded. Instead of insisting on the term Traditional Family Values, I decided to simply remove the whole argument from the first line. I already said I have no objection to the statement being in the article elsewhere. But making a neutral encyclopedic statement in the first line is a good idea I believe.

The 200000 members figure is supported by sources that were placed into the archives without you discussing them. There are other sources that place the figure as higher, but I haven't pushed that point. So as you see, there are NPOV related issues to discuss here. Progression towards a more comprehensive article will be very difficult if you tend to ignore constructive suggestions. Hal Cross 05:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Pedophilia is considered... The diff you posted didn't even mention pedophilia. Regardless, I agree with your sentence, but fail to see the relevance to this article. The vast majority of people think kicking bunny rabbits is wrong too, should we put a section on the AFA's views on animal cruelty?

I removed the part on Conservative Christian... I disagree that it's a loaded term. The fact that it's used by such a wide spectrum of sources suggests it has passed into the vernacular. Is there any serious dispute that the AFA are a) conservative and b) Christian? The only people I know of who might dispute that are the libertarian wing of the conservative movement, who aren't keen on being associated with groups like the AFA.

The 200000 members figure You posted one source, the home page of a state affiliate of the AFA. That's not a reliable source. If the other sources are reliable, post them! Like I've said before, this isn't an adversarial contest. There's no scenario where you agree to reduce the membership claim from 250,000 to 200,000 if we'll drop a category. That's simply not how Wikipedia works. If the information you have is reliably sourced, stick it in the article. Orpheus 05:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Orpheus, you are wrong. The diff I posted does mention pedophilia [34]. Its written very clearly. If you would care to look up the source and read the actual literature, you would see that the AFA runs boycotts to prevent pedophilia, not just because it is indecent, and obscene, but because it is illegal. I know you fail to see the relevance for the AFA pedophilia information, but the sourced literature permits it.

We can agree or disagree that Conservative Christian is a loaded term. The same goes for Traditional Family Values. My solution was to simply remove the whole argumentative problem from the first line. Its a very reasonable solution that I believe many reasonable editors would apply in this situation.

The figures I have are reliably sourced. I will indeed stick them in the article, and I'll make sure the facts are written very clearly. Again, vis the AFA anti-pedophilia literature, please do not ignore constructive suggestions that include reliable sources. Hal Cross 07:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

(od) Ah yes, I see the sentence you're talking about. For the benefit of others, the sentence is The AFA provides research and information on what they see as indecent influences, such as pornography, or what they refer to as the "homosexual agenda which they believe goes against first amendment rights and will increase the incidence of child abuse and pedophilia,", which was changed to The AFA provides research and information on what they see as indecent influences, such as pornography, or what they refer to as the "homosexual agenda."

The AFA are of course free to believe what they want, but this article isn't really the place for that claim, and you haven't given any source for it except their own web page. The place that claim belongs (if well sourced) is the article on the "homosexual agenda", which is already linked. Saying that the AFA runs boycotts to prevent pedophilia is definitely not a neutral statement, because a) there's no evidence they actually do it for that reason apart from their own claims and b) there's no evidence that it's an effective method of reducing pedophilia.

Regarding "conservative Christian" - does anybody else think it's a loaded term that requires removing from the opening paragraph? I'm not sure exactly what the reason for removing it is - it's used very widely in the media.

Perhaps you should just go ahead and put the figure (and reference) into the article, instead of continually saying how reliable your sources are. There doesn't seem much point discussing it until that happens.

Orpheus 08:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong again, Orpheus. There is another source there which explicitly shows the AFA's concern about increases in pedophilia caused by indecent influences. Its a reliable source. In fact at the time I was referring specifically to the Wikipedia guidelines on reliable online sources: [35] which says to use an online source about itself in combination with other sources. The AFA source in itself may even satisfy this guideline [36]. In any case, you seem to still be lacking acknowledgment of certain facts about the edit I made, and I believe other editors would find that troubling.

I've already explained the reason for removing the conservative Christian line from the first line, but I will explain more clearly. There are other terms one can use, and we could argue all day over which. Having Wikipedia state that the AFA are "an organization that promotes Conservative Christian values" can be considered a narrow way to describe the AFA. Its a rather narrow view of the AFA. Traditional Family Values will be broader and more information encompassing and will take the narrow political bias out. The AFA often appeal to Muslims and other religious denominations. Their campaigns involve members of the public from all walks of life, who may join a boycott and never even consider conservative values, or even Christian worship. The AFA seems mostly to be about American Families, and Decency. Its fine by me to leave all of that complicated and argumentative stuff out of the first line though.

The reason I am discussing here now is to determine what sources I need to make the article more comprehensive, and to point your errors out to you. You seem to be blanket dismissing all AFA publications as if they are all automatically unreliable. They are not all to be automatically dismissed according to the Wikiquette editors and the WP reliable sources guidelines. You seem to have ignored points of discussion, WP guidelines, and sources, and that is quite unconstructive. Hal Cross 09:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You've missed it, Hal. This entire discussion was basically about when you can use the AFA as a source about itself. To say "the AFA stated mission statement is _____" is about all you can get out of the AFA website. It's not a reliable source, ever, about itself. It can only be used when it is appropriate to say "the AFA says ____" or "the AFA believes _____." That is something that should happen rarely, and in all other cases, claims about what the AFA really is or what the AFA really does should be sourced elsewhere. To say things like "the AFA provides research" makes it sound like they're actually producing scientifically sound research - this is not the case. If you're struggling this much still with understanding WP:RS and WP:SPS, you may want to try to find an essay that can help you understand better - until then you might want to take a break and let this dispute go. PS I believe "conservative Christian" is a perfectly good term - it's used by the AFA itself, and by reliable sources, to characterize them. --Cheeser1 16:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I believe you missed it, Cheeser1 (the main point at least). The whole of the above discussion shows Orpheus either ignoring or missing the fact that I had placed a source in to support the sentence. There is a suggestion that he or you could have made to state that the AFA are concerned about pedophilia. Its an arguable point. The obvious point though is that I am not getting recognized for using any sources other than the AFA. I appreciate your correction of the finer points of the sentence though because that was what I was requesting via discussion in the first place. If Orpheus and others could discuss the sources in the first place things would be a bit more productive. I don't need a break at all. I'm quite calm and you seem to be helping overall.

If the Conservative Christian sentence is good because it is used by the AFA itself, then it follows that the term "traditional family values" is even better, because the AFA use the term more often, and even more reliable sources also use the term. Hal Cross 19:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, Orpheus and others aren't here to be unproductive and mess things up. I haven't found a single point here where you've assumed good faith. They are trying to hold this article to the standards WP:RS demands of all articles. I tried to comment solely on the content at hand, and yet your response was still "but Orpheus is ignoring the facts!" You've admitted to not understanding WP:RS, but then you tell us that Orpheus is wrong and trying to be unproductive? You don't get to decide "what [you're] requesting via discussion." The entire article is always up for discussion.

And do not twist my words - I never said it was good "because it is used by the AFA itself" - you've taken what I said completely out of context. The only reason it's allowable is because of the secondary sources that just happen to agree with the AFA on that point. I was simply stating that even the AFA would not object to the term "conservative Christian" - and wondering then why you might do so. --Cheeser1 20:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but you seem to be telling me not to twist your words, and in the same post to be telling me to assume good faith. I am getting more mixed messages. I believe the way you have written the sentence above it is extremely easy to not understand what you are saying. And I agree anyway. I have often been using outside sources to support AFA sources. I do not object at all to conservative Christian. Its just that traditional family values is a more accurate term considering the scope of the AFA and their activities. I can add more sources if you dont think the sentence is getting too cluttered. Hal Cross 20:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"Traditional family values" isn't an accurate term, though. Whose tradition? What sort of family? The term is so vague as to be meaningless. Conservative Christianity is defined here on Wikipedia in theological terms, which suggests that Christian right is the appropriate link to make. Regardless, the AFA are a (politically) conservative Christian organisation and the article lead should reflect that. Orpheus 20:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

To address the two links you posted: This one mentions "traditional family values" in a direct quote from the AFA's about page. This one mentions "tfv" in a direct quote from a senior AFA figure. In both cases, they are the AFA's own words. We need to use what *other* people say about the AFA, not what they say about themselves, whether in media they control or in a direct quote by someone else. Orpheus 20:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This is actually an interesting part of the history or background of the organization. The Federation for Decency and ClearTV were more or less merged in the 1980s to create the American Family Association. It would help to state up front why they are called the AFA, and of course its because the prior organizations broadened their concerns to encompass more of the family values of the public who were interested in maintaining decency in the US. Conservative Christian is just a small part of that as the AFA is accepting of all faiths when it comes to boycotting and so on. The Christian Right term is in the box to its right anyway. Basically the AFA does far more than push conservative Christian values. Hal Cross 20:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

(od) That's certainly worth putting in the article, if you can find appropriate sources for it, but we're talking about the lead paragraph here. We're after a sentence or two which sums them up. A lengthy digression on what "traditional family values" means according to the AFA might be appropriate in the body of the article, but not here. From my perspective outside the United States, they don't seem to be doing much that isn't in the classic Christian conservative set of goals. Orpheus 20:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Orpheus, you reverted back to the narrow political fraction instead of the broader more accurate term [37]. You stated that there were no independent sources. However, there seem to be two. Do you care to explain? Also, the term conservative Christian needs far more discussion than trad family values. Traditional family values is obvious as it related directly to the name of American Family Association. Its a simple explanatory statement that answers the reader's automatic question, "what is it and why is it called the AFA?". By placing traditional family values, the line is more accurate. Promoting conservative Christian values ignores all the other work that the AFA do, and it distorts the fact that the AFA appeal to the whole world regardless of creed, and non-Christian believers do respond with cooperation in activities because they also believeHal Cross 20:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You stated that there were no independent sources. However, there seem to be two. Do you care to explain? - I already did, two posts up: [38].

Traditional family values is obvious - No, it isn't. I responded to that too ([39]). Orpheus 21:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes I see what you said now. Well I agree with Cheeser1's application of reliable sources, and I'll add a most definitely independent link there in addition. Its a really good one, and we can discuss it if you like. There is also a book reference that seems to apply but I'll keep it out of the sentence in the lead section as its going to make it far too cluttered: The Destruction of the Moral Fabric of America by Steven Toushin and puppy sharon (2006 page 140) Hal Cross 21:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Orpheus. You made this edit[40]I believe your interpretation is wrong. I will not revert you though and will wait to hear input from other editors such as Cheeser1 on the matter of independent sources. Hal Cross 21:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The Charity Navigator source uses the exact wording from the AFA page. Every media outlet I've seen calls the AFA a "conservative Christian" organisation. There's four quality references for that sentence, plus an extra one I posted after you complained on WP:AN/I. No other editors have come forth to support your viewpoint. At what point will you accept that consensus is for the "conservative christian" wording? Orpheus 21:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No. Firstly I do not believe consensus should be used to trump NPOV. I will be patient and wait for other input on source guidelines and policies, information from other sources and so on. I believe the whole article is far too narrow and built like a big argument. There seems to be a general anti-AFA arrangement throughout. I know the AFA is not the most likeable organization but the article shouldn't be so narrow and accusative. The AFA may well be Christian right in outlook but there seems to be a core of love and good intention driving the AFA along, whether its from the organizers or the public. In fact, the AFA does seem to benefit society through advocacy and sticking up for at least some section of the population's rights and traditions. I am working to make the article far more comprehensive and inclusive of all relevant views. Wherever I see an area of the article that is narrow or argumentative I will work to find information to make it more comprehensive and encyclopedically broad. That is my intention from the first line to the last. Hal Cross 21:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hal, the only other view you've been introducing is that of the AFA itself, which is not broadening the article in some helpful or profound way, but rather, violating the policy on reliable sources. If the reliable sources in the article make the AFA look bad, that's not our job to fix. The read draws his/her own conclusion based on the information provided by verifiable third-party sources, not the AFA. The AFA's views are not a "relevant view." There is no policy requiring us to be "encyclopedically broad" - we can't include viewpoints that aren't from reliable sources and verifiable in third-party sources. See also WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, as well as the parts of WP:RS and WP:V we've already pointed you to regarding the AFA's role in its own article. --Cheeser1 15:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser1. I believe I have already explained my prior position more that once. I did think it rather strange that the views of the AFA are not to be allowed on the AFA article. It made it even more strange that some AFA sourced views were being presented, yet others were being removed pronto. I believe most people new to Wikipedia would consider it strange that the AFA website and journal would not be allowable as viewpoints of the AFA. As I have said repeatedly, I'm happy to provide other sources though. I will make sure to engage other editors in the assessment of which AFA sources are allowable for which views the AFA have. As it is I'll err on the side of caution. I know that "multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one."[41] And I will work carefully with the NPOV tutorial, especially with the recommendation that "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."[42] Hal Cross 15:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Excluding the AFA's own opinion of itself is not matter of being non-NPOV or of suppressing information. Please don't imply that it is. These policies only apply to reliably sourced opinions/perspectives, which explicitly excludes the AFA's idea of itself. If you're going to continue to insist that you're just working through your misunderstanding of so many different policies, could you not continue to do so by making edits to the article? If you have questions, ask for someone to adopt you and teach you how to make these sorts of edits. Once you have things figured out, then you should start contributing again. You've had alot of trouble grasping this stuff, and none of us have been able to help. We cannot continue to try to discuss content issues when you admittedly have not grasped the policies at hand. While you aren't required to know the rules, when a dispute comes up and you're informed of the rules, you ought to start following them. If you find this difficult to do because you just don't get it, you should admit that you don't understand the rules (done), and then stop making disputed edits (which you continue to do, instead). --Cheeser1 17:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Please Cheeser1. As I said, I will do my best to calmly and slowly use reliable non-AFA sources, and as usual I will give plenty of room for discussion. Hal Cross 17:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Lead sentence and citations

Regarding: The AFA provides research and information on what they see as indecent influences, such as pornography, or what they refer to as the "homosexual agenda."[8][9]

The first citation (8), published by the AFA, does not state the AFA provides "research and information" on "pornography." The second citation (9) does not state the AFA provides "research and information" on "pornography" or the "homosexual agenda." In fact, the second citation, which I found on ProQuest, is a 200-word article and the only part that mentioned the AFA is: But critics were unimpressed. Rev. Donald Wildmon, the president of the American Family Association in Tupelo, Miss., told Associated Press that the photo would appeal to pedophiles and was "nothing more than pornography." (the article was about a proposed Calvin Klein ad. showing two boys who appeared to be about 6, one clad only in jockey shorts, the other in boxers, standing on a sofa and arm-wrestling.)

Should this sentence be deleted? I think it should, but I would like more input. Thanks. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 17:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Appears to be a misrepresentation of what the sources say (and/or synthesis). --Cheeser1 17:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I said I'd apply better use of sources, and I will. Hal Cross 19:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC).

Until you do, Hal, what you have qualifies as original research and has no place in this article. --Cheeser1 21:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the extra encouragement Cheeser1. Hal Cross 21:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Compromise on the lead sentence

Hello. After discussion I made this compromise on the lead sentence [43]. I decided not to stuff it up with links to sources for now, but they can be added if requested. Hal Cross 05:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Background

Hi all. I'm going to be working on the much needed background section. I think this type of article should have one e.g. [[44]]. I think it can be achieved quite concisely, and will probably take some stuff from the Wildmon Wikipedia article. Any suggestions are welcome. Hal Cross 22:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Two comments - I think the Activism section is important and it should stay. You could take a couple of early-history type bits out of it and put it into background, but it's important to have that heading. Also, be careful not to overlap too much with the Wildmon article. At the moment it reads like a biography rather than a background, but it is a work in progress after all. Orpheus 23:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the section. The history of Donald Wildmon's life before he founded the AFA is not relevant, especially when someone can click on Donald Wildmon's name to read about it there. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 23:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The information is relevant contextual information. You seem to have once again narrowed the broader picture. Hal Cross 05:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hal, what are you talking about? Where does WP:N, WP:V, or WP:RS ask us to use unreliable or irrelevant data to avoid "narrowing the broader picture"?? --Cheeser1 05:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The reader will want to know why the AFA came about, including the reasoning. I used information that has been sitting pretty happily on the Wildmon article for a very long time. It seems relevant as it explains the background of the forming of the AFA. I'm sure I can find sources for it and it will help the reader see the broader picture. You have already given me some good advice on your talkpage that I have just read. The reason I placed it in the article without sources is because it seems blatantly obvious that it is background to the AFA and helpful to the reader. I know that anything can be whipped from the article if it is not sourced. I was assuming good faith and considered that perhaps Orpheus, CMMK and yourself would be able to cooperatively add richness and comprehensiveness to help the article. As it is the information was simply removed. Fine by me, I'll just find the appropriate sources and add the information again. Any more suggestions from you on this matter as I add the information will be helpful. Again, my intention here is to make the article more comprehensive in information. Your suggestions for adding such information are welcome. Hal Cross 07:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The article already states "it was founded in 1977 by Rev. Donald Wildmon as the National Federation for Decency" adding additional information on Wildmon's life post college is not necessary to explain how the "AFA came about." Other Wikipedia articles do not explain about the lives of their founders prior to founding the organization and neither should the AFA article. Again, if "The reader will want to know why the AFA came about" they can click on the Donald Wildmon article. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 08:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, for now I'll focus more on other areas of the AFA's background until I have sources that show Wildmon has played at least some part in the instigation and growth in popularity of the AFA. Hal Cross 09:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Sourced edits

Hello all. I added some sourced information on the background of the AFA according to your multiple requests for reliable sources etc. There is more to add but I do believe I should take it slowly. There seems to be some problems with the activity paragraph that was already there, but I’ll allow you to comment first. Feel free to comment here. Hal Cross 03:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hal, we've been over this. The term "family values" is not supported by sources or consensus. We've discussed it and the term is ambiguous, non-neutral, not understood worldwide, and inappropriate. There was an appropriate term already in the article, but you keep making your changes despite objections, violating consensus policy. We've been through this before. Do not revert a revert, and do not re-add disputed material. Please stop. --Cheeser1 05:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Cheeser1. You may do well to wait an hour or more before making reverts as that will reduce the likelihood of you starting edit wars. Orpheus and CMMK seem to have also made that same mistake quite often. You didn’t even give me time to provide space for discussion [45]. The "family values" information is supported by reliable sources and I can supply them if you wish. My main concern there was to avoid cluttering the line with lines of links. The term goes straight to the article in question and helps the reader. Concerning consensus I believe I allowed a reasonable and temporary compromise by allowing the conservative Christian term. I then made another compromise by allowing both terms at the same time. I am now disagreeing with your revert. Hal Cross 05:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

We've already had that discussion. Reverting a revert is totally inappropriate and should be reverted within an hour or a minute - you'd be the one starting a revert war, Hal, by blatantly going against the consensus process. If you have reliable sources that somehow clear up the problems with what "traditional family values" are exactly, you should probably inform the people editing the family values article. Using the term "conservative Christian" is not a temporary compromise, nor is using both terms at once. Compromise doesn't always mean "I get what I want eventually," it means that between the four of us, three have made a strong case for excluding such a biased term. You insist that it's fine, and even consider using both terms to be a compromise (even though the group is obviously conservative and Christian). No, Hal, that's not how consensus/compromise work. --Cheeser1 14:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, for the sake of consensus, I agree that you can have conservative Christian. I offer you, Orpheus, and CMMK yet another compromise. You yourself, Cheeser1, have supported the term Traditional Family Values by improving the references [46], and have stated that the term is allowable because it is supported by secondary sources that agree with the AFA [47]. Other editors here have stated that the term can be placed elsewhere with sources and that’s fine also. I consent to those suggestions. It may be appropriate with proper attribution in the background section or a similarly contextual area of the article. Hal Cross 07:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Hal Cross 07:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

(1) I removed a source that was unrelated. How does this prove that I "support the term"??? (2) I never said that it would be allowed. Properly sourced, neutral, unambiguous facts are what we deal in here. Even if you can source the use of the term "traditional family values" it's still an ambiguous, confusing, and terribly biased term. It isn't appropriate. I never said "the term is allowable because it is supported by secondary sources - that's necessary, but not sufficient, for inclusion. (3) Please stop taking what I say out of context - this is the second time you've done so. I will also, once again, ask you (1) not to revert a revert and (2) if you're having trouble knowing how to contribute constructively, because of your admitted misunderstandings of policy, stop adding disputed material to the article. --Cheeser1 14:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Cheeser1. I am doing my best to present reliable sources as you have all been requesting so frequently for the past few days, and to make the article more encyclopedic. I believe my recent edits reflect that[48]. I am open to any suggestion from editors from all over Wikipedia on how to improve those edits further.

I was abiding by the first line yesterday. And I believe that everyone else was happy with the first line yesterday. So that seems to be a consensus according to [49]. I didn't take the conservative Christian away and replace it with TFV. I left conservative Christian alone as it was because I was ok with that consensus.

Then I considered a new situation that I believed would be considered better by all editors, which was to have the statement that says "the AFA is a conservative Christian organization". And then to say that they promote Traditional Family Values. Seems to be a reasonable compromise. You reverted, and I disagreed without reverting. I have followed the consensus process.

I'm deliberately avoiding edit warring by proposing compromise instead of reverting your revert. I'm also taking edits quite slow and leaving time for others to respond. And of course I made a suggestion towards another compromise. That seems to be a reasonable way of going about things. I am presently waiting for feedback on the compromise that I have proposed. If it is ok, then we can move on, or if not, then perhaps we can come to some other compromise.

If you would like to make a comment on the additional compromise and consensus I proposed above, feel free to answer. If you have any suggestions on how to improve the article, then again feel free to make those suggestions. Hal Cross 15:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hal, you aren't proposing compromises. You're making them up on the fly and assuming they work - adding back in your content under the guise of a compromise that you made up on the spot is not compromise. You've gotten feedback - your "compromise" doesn't change anything. --Cheeser1 18:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not add the information after proposing this: [50]. Its a compromise and an effort to work towards consensus. What do you think of the offer itself? Hal Cross 19:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

AFA and Katrina

Hello CMMK, you reverted [51] my removal of the information on Katrina. I removed it because it is poorly sourced, and it is neither controversy nor criticism. It seems to me to be an unreliable statement. Why did you revert it back in the criticism section? Hal Cross 16:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a controversial statment and it is not poorly sourced. Please explain why you removed the entire Boycotts section (diff). —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 17:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello CMMK. I disputed the paragraph because the Wikinews seems to me to be unreliable as a source. Can you give me any information that demonstrates the reliability of Wikinews? Also, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that the statement is controversial at all. There are no other statements controverting it.

I didn't remove the boycott section for long, I just moved it to the operations section [52]. Seemed to be more appropriate there. Hal Cross 17:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

When moving information, it is crucial that you do it in one edit, so as not to mislead or confuse others. --Cheeser1 01:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I did state that I was moving the information pretty clearly. [53]. I also made the same mistake as CMMK in believing information had been removed rather than moved. He didn’t move information in one go either [54][55][56] but I don’t believe its such a crucial point. I find it hard to move things around in one go and I'm sure other editors do also. Hal Cross 03:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, what does seem to be a crucial point is that CMMK restored a disputed edit (related to this section) back into the article just after you told me to stop doing that. CMMK's restore was a direct restore without adjustments whereas mine was a compromise based upon discussion and intended within the edit-revert-discuss cycle. I'm not criticizing CMMK exactly, just pointing out another inconsistency. Hal Cross 03:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

In reply to your statement about controversial statements CMMK, I agree that the statement is controversial and that you can keep it in. Hal Cross 03:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hal, making an edit that you decide is a compromise is not a compromise. A compromise has to be agreed upon - that's what a compromise is. CMMK also reverted a part of my edit that I accidentally deleted (thanks CMMK) - he did not revert a revert, he reverted my first edit. If I had reverted him, then it would have been a problem. Please stop accusing people of violating a policy until you understand the policy in question. Thanks. --Cheeser1 03:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I disputed this information [57]. CMMK put it back into the article with no discussion. Hal Cross 03:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes Hal, but you still don't understand how this policy works. Whether or not something is disputed is not how we decide to leave it out. It's what was the first change. If something is not in the article, and you add it, I can remove it. You should not re-add it. On the other hand, if something is in the article and you remove it, I can re-add it and you should not re-remove it. That's what's going on here. Please get to know the process for developing consensus before you make more edits regarding disputed material in this article, and before you continue to have these discussions. We've spent more time on this talk page explaining basic policy to you than we have discussing the content in question (and that's between three of us). Please stop editing the article if you're having this much trouble with basic policies. If you want to contribute constructively, get to know the consensus-building process before you start making edits that do nothing but hold it up (and incorrectly accuse others of doing so). Your (admitted) misunderstanding of policy has brought work on this article to a stand-still - despite rapid amounts of editing, we're getting almost nowhere. I'm not going to continue to explain this to you because it doesn't seem to be helping. Please consider going elsewhere to help you learn about policy - you can be adopted by an experienced user or trying to read and study the policies further. --Cheeser1 03:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, here's a solution. For now, I'll focus on adding reliable sources to the article. I will not add anything that has been disputed, even if I have made a consensus on that information. Any such information can be restored or added by you and other editors. I will stay out of any removal of information altogether, whether I believe it is a poor source, a bad edit, or whatever. I made plenty of good edits yesterday that made pretty big improvements to the article (four reliable sources [58]), I have a lot more similarly reliable book and journal sources and will continue to add them and keep them all open for discussion as usual. Hal Cross 04:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

PS, second thoughts, I will take a break for a bit. I have just found some more useful sources that I can add, and it'll take a bit of time to get them in good order. Hal Cross 04:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Cheeser1. Just for clarification towards cautious editing during busy times: You made this edit summary [59] just after your rapid revert, saying "please do not re-add these disputed terms". So I believed you were emphasizing the need to discuss over and above the BRD cycle, that disputed terms should be discussed. In light of your cautious advice beyond recommendations here [60] I believe that to be a reasonable assumption. I agree with that idea, especially when lots of edits are occurring. If Someone removes a part of the article saying that there is a problem with it, it seems more reasonable to me to discuss rather than simply to plonk it back in without discussion. The inconsistency I saw in your behavior was due to my mistaken belief that you were applying encouragement towards edit cycles that were more cautious and careful than BRD. Anyway, that cleared up, I'll add the new sourced edits when I'm sure they are really presentable. Hal Cross 05:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No, Hal, that's not how it works. It isn't about removing vs. adding content. It's about changes - whether or not you add content or remove it, if you are reverted, you aren't supposed to continue to re-do your edits. Please stop saying that we need to adopt some new type of consensus-building. We have a process. Please follow it. Do not re-add your material, in any form, until a compromise/consensus version has been established here on the talk page. This is the most basic part of the consensus-building process, and like I've said repeatedly, if you are having such a hard time understanding how to build consensus, stop making disputed or contentious edits to the article. --Cheeser1 05:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh I am not saying we need to adopt any new policy, and I am not formulating one. But I am happy if you encourage caution. I know the basics, and I am happy to apply them with more expert adaptation. Thanks for the correction.

Here's another point: I consented above to the inclusion of the Katrina information. But I'd also like your input. Do you consider the information to be a controversy? Hal Cross 06:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It's obviously a controversy. What subheading would you suggest instead? Meteorology? It generated widespread media attention, specifically, as a controversial statement. --Cheeser1 06:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, think I see what you mean. So you mean its self evident that the statement is controversial and that, together with the Canadian source of course, warrants its inclusion? Hal Cross 07:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No, Hal. It may be obvious, but we also have sources that clearly and unambiguously mark this as a controversy. Please refer to WP:V (again). --Cheeser1 07:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Cheeser. But I want to make sure I am on the same page as you concerning which clear and unambiguous markings. Is it the statement "wiped out rampant sin", that marks it as a controversy? Or is it another part/area of the article[61] and if so, which part of the source/s? Hal Cross 08:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Hal Cross 08:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews may not be a reliable source, but Canadian Content news articles seem to be reliable. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 06:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep. I believe Wikinews is obviously unreliable. I still consent to the information with the Canadian source. Hal Cross 07:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Bit late to respond point by point, but it seems to me that Hal is focusing on the small print of various policies and ignoring the spirit. Remember that consensus doesn't mean unanimous consent, so whether he consents to inclusion of the information isn't necessarily all that relevant. The controversy over the statement comes from people's reactions to it, not the wording of the statement itself. Also, regarding Wikinews, see here: [62] Orpheus 09:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure there is no need to go into detail in terms of keying in your view, just pasting some key statements from the source will suffice. The policies I am referring to in order to come to consensus are written here [63] specifically regarding "consent". We can abide by decisions even if they are not perfect and compromise is an important part of that. Which is why I am compromising and abiding.

I'd agree with you over people's reaction to statements as being proof of controversy. And on reflection, I do concede that the statement was written that way in the Canadian source because the source writer considered it to be controversial. Is that what we are in agreement over? Hal Cross 09:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Essentially, yes. Orpheus 09:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well good. Hal Cross 09:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Stone and Vaida

Hello Orpheus. Regarding this edit. [64]. Yes I can write this more accurately as something that Wildmon has done under the title American Family Association as that is what is written in the text. I’m open to suggestions on that. This statement “Founded in Mississippi in 1977, the American Family Association has been a leading player in social-conservative fights against pornography and gay marriage” is the first stated view of the author. You moved the information from the source[65] So it should be attributed to the author more clearly. Hal Cross 09:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Hal Cross 09:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I left the source attached to the text - "has a yearly budget of about US$14 million, and owns 180 American Family Radio stations in 28 states" is from Stone & Vaida, isn't it? The group mushrooming in size does not refer to the AFA, it refers to the Arlington Group. Orpheus 10:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You are correct about mushrooming, and mushrooming itself could be more neutrally termed. It could be better described as something like:Wildmon has also been involved with Arlington Group,....concise details. The source places the information under the title American Family Association, but I would now change the Arlington Group as either a subsid or associate of AFA unless you can find other associating terms. The "AFA has been a leading player....." line is also Stone and Vaida. Hal Cross 10:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The leading player line is redundant - the information is already in the article elsewhere, it doesn't need to be repeated. Plus, leading player isn't quantified in the article. I write scholarly articles and believe me, you can't rely on anything in the first paragraph - it's filler to give readers something to ignore while their brain engages. The Arlington Group is definitely not a subsidiary or associate of the AFA. It's an independent "working group" type organisation, sort of like an industry association. Orpheus 10:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The redundancy issue is only relevant when it causes a problem. Summary style is WP recommendation, but information existing in the lead section, for example, is not a reason to remove sourced views and information from the article. The lead is supposed to be a concise overview of the article.

Any of the reliably sourced relevant views that you have been removing today can be restored according to NPOV policy on the inclusion of all relevant views. Its been quite interesting watching how those views, and the whole background section, have been removed. I am open to discussion on exactly how restoring relevant views will take place. There are many more such stated views to be added so I will take my time about it. Any suggestions? Hal Cross 10:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Why does the article need to say the same thing twice? It's obvious from the text of the article that the AFA is against pornography and gay marriage, so that doesn't need to be added. "leading player" is not quantified in the article you linked, and the reader can work it out for themselves by looking at the information we have got in the article (budget, number of radio stations, etc - the bits I left in). See WP:PEACOCK for more information.

Any of the reliably sourced relevant views that you have been removing today can be restored according to NPOV policy on the inclusion of all relevant views. I see we're back to WP:OWN again. Which particular bit that I reverted can you give a specific reason for keeping in? I did it as a series of small edits to make posting diffs easier for you, incidentally. Orpheus 10:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what part of WP:OWN are you referring to. And are you accusing me? Or applying it to yourself? Hal Cross 11:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

When you say this: I am open to discussion on exactly how restoring relevant views will take place. you imply that you have decided that your views WILL be restored, and that decision is final. That's ownership. It's obnoxious, not conducive to building a good community, and does not advance resolution of a content dispute. Orpheus 11:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is dynamic and flexible, though I believe there are policies that make some things inevitable in the long run. I believe I am an optimist. I am open to discussion on any relevant views as ever. If you find you have something against me personally, a more appropriate place to discuss that would be my talkpage, if anywhere. Hal Cross 13:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hal, when you say "I am open to discussion" it makes it sound like you've made a decision about the article, on your own, but you've decided to let us discuss it and maybe change it. What's actually policy (what are these "WP recommendations" you keep alluding to? There is no policy to support your assertions) is that when you make edits to the article, you don't get to decide that they are inevitable, and you don't get to decide that we're allowed to discuss it. Also, complaints (which several editors have echoed) about your editing style and your problems with content inclusion are personal attacks. They are not. Your inappropriate editing has generated more work on this talk page than it has on the actual article, because you refuse to heed anyone's advice about how to contribute productively. --Cheeser1 14:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser1. This section is not about me. If anybody wants to say something about me, feel free to say it to my face via email or on my talkpage. This section is about Stone and Vaida. If you have any suggestions about the reference in question, feel free to make them here. I have made critical statements about Orpheus' edits concerning Stone and Vaida. I believe that is the way Wikipedia articles are improved. I have also been working on clarifying consensus and forging agreement in the above section. There are specific questions there which you are free to answer or not. I don't mind if you don't answer them. How you behave is your responsibility. Hal Cross 15:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The policies I refer to specifically in this case (Stone and Vaida) are [66] on how to work towards neutrality and of course the NPOV page which should be core to our editing. If those authors, for example, hold a relevant and informed view, it should not be suppressed. Hal Cross 15:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

(od) Once more around the track. What view are you talking about from the Stone and Vaida reference? Orpheus 15:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This view: "The AFA has been a leading player in social-conservative fights against pornography and gay marriage"(Stone and Vaida 2004:3599).Hal Cross 17:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I already pointed out what was wrong with that. 1) It's obvious filler, an introductory sentence. 2) The phrase "leading player" is imprecise and unnecessary. 3) The phrase "social-conservative fights against pornography and gay marriage" is an overblown way of saying what is already in the article.

The sentence you quote does not add anything to the encyclopedia. Directly copying text from source articles is not necessary when the point is already present. Orpheus 17:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Which sentence are you comparing it with? Hal Cross 17:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The point of the sentence you're referring to is that the AFA campaign against porn and gay marriage. Both of those concepts exist in the article already. They don't have to be in the same sentence to count. Orpheus 17:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Its a clear and concise statement from a reliable source. Hal Cross 18:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it's an imprecise and unnecessary statement from a reliable source. What is your reason for including it when the point of it is already in the article? How many times is it necessary to mention the same information? Orpheus 18:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, how about this version?: "The AFA has been a leading player in social-conservative fights against pornography"Hal Cross 19:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Orpheus has taken his time to explain to you why using the term "leading player" is a bad idea and explained that AFA's pornography activism is already mentioned elsewhere in the article, so it shouldn't be mentioned again. Your previous statement shows your reluctance to take into consideration what other editors are telling you about your editing. You have a history of doing this and I'm sure it is very frustrating to editors who take their time to explain you things when you just ignore them. I hope you change your attitude soon and take into consideration what Orpheus and Cheeser1 are explaining to you about your edits (or proposed edits), as they are both level-headed and experienced users who are familiar with Wikipedia’s guidelines, policies, and acceptable content for articles. Thanks. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 20:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If I wrote "The AFA are a bunch of fascist fun-hating parasites", you would rightly object on the grounds of neutrality. If I then turned around and offered to instead write "The AFA are a collection of parasitical fun-haters", would that be any better? Rearranging the words does not change the underlying point. Orpheus 00:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any other more specific suggestions? Hal Cross 02:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

(od) Yes - don't have that text at all, for the reasons I've already given. Orpheus 02:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

So Orpheus. We need to come to consensus on this matter. Do you agree that Stone and Vaida are a reliable source? And if so, how do you suggest to present this information?Hal Cross 18:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the article you cited is a reliable source. That doesn't mean the text you put there should go in. I've already given my reasons for that, and my suggestion is that the sentence is unnecessary and doesn't need to be in the article. Orpheus 20:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

From my talk page

Hello Cheeser1. Concerning your statements [67]. I believe I understand the situation here.

• I believe there are 3 editors (including yourself) who want to have the homophobia category kept on the AFA article. And I have made the case that it is inappropriate because it goes against NPOV policies on the inclusion of all relevant views.

• The AFA are not particularly likable by WP editors. The AFA are not politically correct. They are traditionalists. People accuse them of all sorts of things, most vocally because of their opposition to porn. Partly because of their fight against indecency. Definitely because they regularly criticize the media. And people tend to ignore their fight against pedophilia in preference for the support for homosexual "rights".

• The article often reflects that situation. You could say that the Web often reflects the world. But only the specifically interested part of it.

• I am not from the US, and I am not homosexual, so I don't have any notable pre-conception about the AFA. To me they are a new subject that I chanced upon when browsing places to visit in the US.

Concerning your statements in particular. I have not accused anyone of personal attack. I am abiding by consensus. I am (and always have been) discussing rather than kneejerk reverting. I havn't decided that any particular thing is inevitable, only that I believe some things are. I have supplied reliable sources (yesterday at least:) and definitely in the past despite never being acknowledged for it. I have even taken a break from editing in accordance with your own advice. You have asked me to come to consensus before editing. So I am working on coming to consensus. What else do you want me to do? Hal Cross 16:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a break. We've been having this discussion non-stop for days. If you're accusing us of bias because we all happen to agree, you're jumping to a very strange conclusion. Like I've said before, reliable sources establish that the group is anti-gay. To exclude this would violate WP:NPOV. Please keep the discussion of this topic on the talk page of that article. --Cheeser1 18:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I am currently taking a break from editing the article because of your suggestion and all the stuff that has been going on there. You made comments about me on the talkpage of the AFA article, so instead of talking about matters not relevant to the article, I took my comments here. If you applied your very own categorization recommendations to the rest of Wikipedia, the cats would be full to the brim with unhelpful accusations. Hal Cross 19:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

For the last time Hal, this isn't an accusation. It is a label of "homophobic" applied to a group like the AFA, which is verifiably anti-gay. I suppose we shouldn't call Adolph Hitler a Nazi because it's an accusation?? Hal. Stop bringing content disputes here and stop making up policy. The fact that something can be construed as an accusation doesn't mean it's not allowed on Wikipedia. Don't feed me this nonsense about "full to the brim." Okay? --Cheeser1 20:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hal, you state, "I'm not from the US, and I am not homosexual, so I don't have any notable pre-conception about the AFA." - Are you insinuating that I have a pre-conception about the AFA just because I'm American? What kind of strange logic is this? —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 20:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps if you were/are homosexual? I find it mind-blowing that straight=neutral automatically, according to Hal. --Cheeser1 21:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why, but Hal Cross seems to think homosexuals are a group of people who make edits he disagrees with. For example, back in July, Hal Cross stated: "I'm sure there are going to be some queers who want to emphasize the cats" referring to the category dispute. In the past, Hal Cross’ edits to this article have shown his OR POV pushing regarding information on homosexuals. Obviously, Hal Cross has had neutrality problems himself; however, I guess he is trying to make it seem like that is not the case by implying others have "pre-conception about the AFA" when he claim he does not... —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 23:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, there have been multiple other users (not only three) who were in favor of keeping the homophobia category (look at the history). —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 20:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice snapshot of my introduction to Wikipedia CMMK. To add a bit of balance I did actually deride people who bash homosexuals also. I have rather taken to civility since then. This information from Cheeser1's talkpage was intended as a discussion of editor matters, rather than content matters. I find it strange that I met Cheeser1 during a Wikiquette advice session, and this is one of the outcomes. Hal Cross 02:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not surprising at all - the seriously-disruptive edit warring, content disputes, and policy misunderstands related to this article would probably attract the attention of someone on the WQA. As everyone (except you) has said, much of what you add to this article is contentious (and you add things repeatedly, despite objections). Likewise, what you try to remove is properly sourced, and your reasons are generally inappropriate (as if "anti-gay" is an insult or accusation, instead of something verifiably used to describe this group). --Cheeser1 03:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser1. I believe we should keep editor related matters to personal talk pages and leave this talkpage to discussing the rather controversial subject of the AFA. Hal Cross 04:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

But the reason we can't have a constructive discussion of the AFA article is because of editor related matters - specifically, your approach to the discussion. Orpheus 05:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Bingo. --Cheeser1 05:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

So feel free to say what you want to say via my talkpage or my email. That will reduce the likelihood of disruption, and free up this talkpage for constructive discussion on how to enrich the article with more information and reliable sources. Hal Cross 05:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

(od) You're missing the point. The reason it's so difficult to have a constructive discussion here is because of the way you approach the discussion here. If you were more in tune with the community/consensus approach to Wikipedia, this talk page would be a tenth of the length and far more useful to everyone. We could immediately cease all references to you, and nothing would change. The (incredibly minor) content dispute would still be dragged out endlessly and nobody would achieve anything, regardless of whether we address you on your talk page, on here, or by semaphore flags draped off the nearest bridge. The only way that will change is if a) you contribute in a more positive fashion or b) everybody ignores you and gets on with the article. I would much prefer a). Orpheus 06:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I've been too patient...

An administrator needs to mediate this page before the whole Hal/CMMK feud deteriorates any further. WAVY 10 Fan 22:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not the administrator notice board, so I'm puzzled to why you are inserting this comment here. Also, mediation is not a good idea and I'm not the only party involved in this "feud." —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 23:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"Hal/CMMK"

I didn't say you were the only one. It seems like you and Hal are trying to counter the other's edits. WAVY 10 Fan 23:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hal Cross has not recently countered my edits and I have not countered Hal Cross' edits, unless there were in direct violation of Wikipedia policy. I didn’t even have enough time to read all the sources he posted up the other day; others users got to it first and removed/reworded the information before I did. Even if I was counting Hal Cross’ edits, an administrator is not going to do any thing about it, because I have not violated any policies. Your comments about an administrator needing to mediate are completely unnecessary. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 23:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Wavy. Patience is definitely a useful thing here. But I would also be very much open to any kind of admin/mentor/mediator presence. I didn't get the impression that the problem is specifically related to CMMK/Myself. I feel its more a general discussion/editing POV problem. So you could be right that an admin presence may well be helpful. Hal Cross 02:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. WAVY 10 Fan 12:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Mitchel

Orpheus. You also took this piece of information away from the article :[68].Its a reliable source and its giving actual figures. Its not just a passing mention at all. Do you have any suggestions on a compromise? Hal Cross 19:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The membership claim doesn't distinguish between membership of affiliates and membership of the parent organisation. It is a passing mention and it is suspiciously over-rounded (one significant figure). I think the reason you're having such trouble finding a source is because the AFA is very secretive about their figures - membership, budget etc. See here for example. Orpheus 20:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Its ok, the figures differ from source to source in terms of generality. I'll put them all together so the readers can judge for themselves. Hal Cross 03:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Then why didn't you use the most specific source to start with? Orpheus 04:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The Mitchel source is fine. I have no problem with adding more information in combination with Mitchel. Hal Cross 04:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not fine, for the reasons I gave above, and if the figures differ from source to source then I repeat - why didn't you start with the most specific source? Orpheus 05:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Newsreview.com

Orpheus, you also removed this contextual piece of information that is relevant to the issue[69]. Please explain in more detail why you think its not relevant to the issue. Hal Cross 19:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

As Orpheus stated in the edit summary, this information is not relevant to the issue. Also, note sentence before the sentence you quoted in the article reads "His condemnation of military involvement in child prostitution was met by silence from the U.S. Navy." —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 19:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Its as relevant as the author's comment. Adding the author's comment brings the comparison in and makes it relevant. You cannot remove one without removing the other. Hal Cross 19:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, second thoughts, I think its fair to leave RC Young's line in. It could be seen as argumentative editing, but its one of the more crass comments you see being thrown around by opponents of anti-porn, anti-pedophile activist. Hal Cross 19:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not relevant because it doesn't involve the AFA in any shape or form. The original complaint from the AFA was one of many. The response from the author was specific to the AFA complaint. The response from the Navy was to the author and didn't refer to the AFA at all. It's a great quote for the One Of The Guys article, or the US Navy article (if that includes anything about the book, that is). It's not appropriate to include here unless it mentions the AFA in some way. Orpheus 20:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes its fine to leave the officer's comment out. The RC comment pretty much demonstrates the tackiness of the novelist pretty well on its own. Hal Cross 03:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

What was tacky about the author's comment? It seems reasonable to me that the AFA should be more concerned with actual pedophilia than a fictional depiction of sex. That suggests to me that the opinion expressed below about how the AFA oppose porn because it could lead to pedophilia is somewhat hollow. Orpheus 04:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The AFA seem to me to have prevented pedophilia by protesting against what they see as obscene material, at least according to a report I have. And they have been core to the removal of a whole mess of child pornography from various media, and that includes homosexually oriented websites. You are free to hold a dismissive view on their work though. Hal Cross 04:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

That's circular logic. The AFA think porn leads to pedophilia, so they protest against it, and we should include the claim because they are effective at preventing it through their protests. You have to assume that the premise is true to make that work, and we can't do that - it's WP:OR. Orpheus 05:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Well yes of course I would discourage you from attempting OR. In relation to the Newsreview matter though, I am becoming far happier with the RC Young comment as it stands. Hal Cross 10:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sherkat and Ellison

Orpheus, you removed this piece of text from the article [70]. Could you please explain in more detail about the source not supporting the text. If the information isn't actually in the source, can you suggest another way to present the information?. Hal Cross 19:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The article you cited is an examination of why Conservative Protestants oppose pornography, and what beliefs the people who support them hold. It makes the point that some people believe that porn leads to pedophilia and rape. Because they hold that belief, they are more inclined to support groups like Focus on the Family, the AFA, etc etc. It doesn't say that the AFA fights against porn because it leads to anything. My suggestion for a way to present the information would be to not present it unless you can find a reliable source that says that porn actually does lead to pedophilia and rape. Orpheus 21:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Its the view of many Christian right groups that porn leads to pedophilia and rape. Of course this is backed up by the fact that the AFA are successful in using that rationale to persuade companies to work harder on killing porn. Its also supported by the fact that the AFA seem to prevent pedophilia in some cases. Nobody needs to find any such scientific information on porn and rape. Its a sourced view in context. So its appropriate to add the information to the line. It explains why the AFA is mentioned, and it give reason for why the AFA does what it does. The AFA fight porn (and the homosexual agenda of course) because they believe such community and family values activism will reduce the incidence of pedophilia, rape, bestiality etc. Hal Cross 03:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because some people believe that doesn't mean it's true, and it doesn't mean that it is worth putting in this article. I repeat - your source does not justify the text you added.

Its also supported by the fact that the AFA seem to prevent pedophilia in some cases. - That would be an appropriate statement to make, if you can find a source for it. Until then, it's not a fact and you should stop referring to it as such.

The AFA fight porn (and the homosexual agenda of course) because they believe such community and family values activism will reduce the incidence of pedophilia, rape, bestiality etc. - That is opinion, not verified information. There's no evidence that that's why they actually do oppose porn. It could just be the excuse they use to get donations from the Conservative Protestant community (which is, in fact, what your source concludes). Orpheus 04:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I agree. I could have written the para more clearly. Here is the information in that main paragraph in quotes.

"Conservative Protestant groups such as the Christian Coalition, Morality in Media, the American Family Association, and the Christian Action Network have been instrumental for coordinating collective actions, mobilizing resources, and providing leadership." Sherkat and Ellison 1997

And we could add concise information to indicate leadership for... what. Any suggestions? Hal Cross 04:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The article already includes information on the level of resources the AFA puts into its activism. It's up to the reader to make the connection to other groups. It's obvious from the article that the AFA is a major group in their field - there's no need to use WP:PEACOCK terms like "leading player" or "provides leadership". Orpheus 05:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You haven't presented any specific proof that the statement is peacocking. What evidence do you have? Hal Cross 09:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

(od) *sigh* Saying that the AFA "provides leadership" is a matter of opinion. Read the essay - show, don't tell. That means verifiable facts, not vague statements lifted from introductions to articles.. Orpheus 11:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Consensus policy 101

Dear Hal. Please follow these edits closely:

1. You make a bold edit by adding new material here.
2. CMMK removes that information, reverting your bold edit here.
3. You revert a revert, claiming that CMMMK had made a bold edit in step 2 here.

Please stop abusing consensus policy and misrepresenting your edits to the article. You can't revert a revert, and you certainly can't do so on the basis of the BRD process, as if the revert was bold. The revert (step 2 above) was not bold. Your initial edit (step 1) was the bold edit. If you still don't get it, then (like I've said before) stop adding contentious material to the article and stop citing a (mis)policy that you don't understand. --Cheeser1 20:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

To make it worse, the material that Hal reverted wasn't actually removed at all, it was moved and now appears in the article in more neutral wording, with a more appropriate location. [71] - initial move and first reword, [72] - second reword. Orpheus 21:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Orpheus, your statement shows that Cheeser1 is wrong. CMMK didn't make a revert at all. It was an adjustment or change. I said that I was reverting. I was wrong in the edit summary because my edit didn't change every other edit back to the CMMK edit, and it was simply an adjustment. That is why I reverted myself. I admit that I made a mistake and I corrected myself already only minutes after the mistake. I'd recommend that Cheeser1 should look more closely at the definitions of change and revert. Hal Cross 03:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Orpheus, your statement shows that Cheeser1 is wrong. CMMK didn't make a revert at all. It was an adjustment or change. - that is the very definition of wikilawyering, which is strongly discouraged here. In addition, revert is defined as "changing to a previous version, in whole or in part", so what you did was in fact a revert (even though you undid it shortly afterwards). Orpheus 04:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes and as I indicated when I reverted myself[73], I have a far better idea in mind:) Cheeser1, posting this section seems similar to you posting information from your talk page above [74]. Its an interesting style of discussion preference. Would you recommend the posting of editor behaviour discussion from personal talk pages to article talk pages as a general Wikiquette recommendation?

In addition, you have told me before to stop adding contentious material to the article before I took a break. By contentious, do you mean reliably sourced views that seem to go be at odds with sourced anti-AFA views, or just at odds with your own unsourced views? Hal Cross 03:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want to drag a content dispute onto my talk page, I have every right to drag it back here. I've already made it very clear that you aren't doing yourself any favors by tring to spread these disputes across several talk pages. What you post on my talk page is not yours. You don't own it. You put your words out into the internets, and if I choose to put them here where they belong, so be it. --Cheeser1 04:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I was presenting non-content related information on your talkpage in order to come to some kind of consensus. You have still failed to respond to some of my consensus oriented questions. Hal Cross 09:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Look at what you posted. It was entirely about content and how we are/aren't achieving consensus - all issues related to the article. Read those bullet points again - 1) 100% content issue, 2) accusing all the editors here but you of bias, 3) commentary on the state of the article, and 4) some sort of statement of your non-bias as it relates to this article. These are all points that should be discussed here (if anywhere). If you have "consensus-oriented questions" then they should be posed here. --Cheeser1 14:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser1, I'm doing my best to reply to you as clearly as I can. As you can see from my first line, my comments to you on your talkpage were of my view of the situation, and I concluded with nothing but comments about myself. I accuse all editors including myself of bias. I believe we are all biased and thats why we have WP processes. In relation to this section, I don't need consensus on my own view because I'm not trying to get my own view into the article. I would appreciate it if all personal stuff was kept off the article talkpage and we focus on the content itself. I believe that should be in line with Wikiquette recommendations. Hal Cross 15:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

ANI notification

Hello all. I made an ANI notification[75]. Feel free to comment. Hal Cross 05:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The general state of the article

The article seems to me to be strongly biased towards presenting the religious-conservative elements of the group and it doesn’t seem to show any of the diversity of views, background influences, and concerns that are in the sourced literature.

One discrepancy is that the lead section has some information on when the AFA was started, and on the biblical view and conservative view, but that doesn’t seem to be reflected in the main body of the article. According to WP:LEAD, the lead is to be a concise overview of the whole subject. The lead seems to be quite narrow to me, and some of the information isn’t expanded upon or enriched in the main body of the article.

There was a background section that I started off and was open to input on [76], but it somehow got deleted. I believe the background should involve information such as the inception of the group, prior related groups, people and their backgrounds, the main views about the AFA, its core beliefs and so on. There is a repeat mention throughout the article about the so – called conservative Christian view of the AFA, but the specifics of those views are not mentioned at all. Its almost as if the term conservative Christian is being used as an accusation, with no specific mention of the category of conservative Christian that it is considered to belong to.

So in sum, the article really seems to lack the context and main concerns of the AFA, and why they are concerned about porn, pedophilia and so on. Anyway, I am open to suggestions on how to make the article more representative of the whole story. Hal Cross 10:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Each individual bit of that background section has been discussed in excruciating detail on this talk page already. The good bits are still in the article, the bits that were already in the article were removed for redundancy, and the bits that were either wrong or not encylopedic were removed. Orpheus 13:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Homophobia Category

Thanks for starting us off in discussion, AniMate. As before, I believe the category Homophobia, is inappropriate because is circumvents NPOV policy on the inclusion of all relevant views. Here is one similar explanation from an outside administrator on the categorization talkpage [77]Hal Cross 08:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

More specifically, if the category is used because it is an accusation or criticism of something, then it will generally be part of a bigger argument. That will need to be annotated next to the accusation so as to include the other side of the argument. You can't do that with categories at all, in which case NPOV will be circumvented, so I suggest adding it to a list is more appropriate so that the other side of the argument can be presented properly. Hal Cross 09:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

We already debated this, several times. See here and here for the most recent two. Orpheus 11:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree this has been debated before, but it's been debated by people who regularly edit the article and are passionate about it. This is just a chance to get some fresh perspectives from outside editors. That way a clear consensus can be reached, and hopefully these circular arguments can end. Personally, I'm inclined to think the category should stay, but I think Hal raises some valid concerns in the previous discussions. Most of the prominent conservative Christians could be lumped into the homophobia category as well as several right wing pundits. I think this a good platform to figure out what criteria would permit the homophobia category to be added to several articles. That having been said, the AFA appears to have done extensive campaigning and boycotting of any group or individual they perceive as supporting LGBT rights. It may not be the only cause they've adopted, but their actions make me think that homophobia is a relevant category for this article. AniMate 11:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, a wider consensus is better - easier to uphold, as well. I posted those for background reading. Also relevant are the CfDs for the category. one and two. The main concern raised in the past was that it was an unfair accusation to put the AFA in with violent homophobic groups and articles like "gay bashing". That was addressed by making a different category for those groups.

Hal's argument is very generic, and can be used against almost any category in this article. For instance, Category:Anti-pornography activists, from the point of view of an adult entertainment producer, is an accusation. Some could object to the AFA being in Category:Christian organizations because of theological differences (they do X so they're not real Christians, etc etc). I think neutrality requires that we look at the categories objectively rather than from a particular point of view. I'm still not sure exactly what "circumvents NPOV policy on the inclusion of all relevant views" means - surely that's an argument to keep rather than delete, given that deleting would remove that view? Orpheus 11:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

In terms of choosing categories, I as always prefer more caution and to follow the general consensus that developed the categorization article [78], and that includes all categories in the article. You offered compromises and I was open to them with reservations. The presence of the homophobia category seems to me to show a total lack of caution. Hal Cross 12:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I still don't get how this is an "accusation." Homophobic/anti-gay simply means that one opposes the rights of or equity for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. Can we not call Rush Limbaugh a staunch conservative (or a drug user) because either of those categorizations could be misconstrued as an insult? No. The AFA does what the definition of anti-gay is. This is verifiable. How could we not include such a category? --Cheeser1 14:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Conservative Christian:

The AFA are primarily for decency and against what they see as obscenity. They started as a group when Wildmon couldn’t find a program that was suitable for his family on TV because it was full of adultery, violence, and profanity. He said something about it on the pulpit and the congregation complained to the broadcasters. The bishop then told him to give up the pulpit and devote his time to spreading the word of Christianity in other ways.

Their background as a charity is definitely conservative Christian in perspective. They do appeal to non-Christians also under the broader category of traditional family values. They are generally supportive of anyone who wants to protest against what they see as indecency and they include pornography, some sexually explicit books and paintings, child pornography, pedophilia, homosexual agenda (what they see as inequalities rather than homosexuals themselves), and movies that denigrate the image of Jesus or Christians. So most of the issues the AFA are concerned with have nothing to do with homosexual agenda, and the AFA state they do what they do out of love of others and belief in God. Consistent with a common Christian perspective, the AFA believes homosexuality behavior is a choice and the AFA is full of members who chose to stop behaving in homosexual ways.

Here is a useful website on religious tolerance and conservative Christians. I believe it shows some degree of accuracy [79].

The AFA, according to the most independent source I can get hold of, benefits society as a charity through advocacy and civil rights: [80], and it gains the highest rating possible (four stars) which stands for Exceptional (Exceeds industry standards and outperforms most charities in its Cause.) [81]

The homosexual agenda issue is only one part of the issue, and it it primarily a first amendment issue about homosexuals trying to get more rights and bandwidth than heterosexuals. As I have been explaining for months it seems, the whole article has a narrow argument running through it and all the other concerns of the AFA have tended to be deleted (sometimes due to poor sourcing). They have been deleted out of hand, rather than kept without sourcing temporarily, and consensus found on how to better present with sourcing. I have collected a lot more information on the AFA regarding pornography, pedophilia, blasphemy and so on that I didn’t present because of the ongoing conflicts etc.

The AFA are very large in membership. Some figures have stated that they are over 2 million in number. That will no doubt involve a lot of “ex-homosexuals” who are receiving help from the AFA.

In addition to providing opportunities for the advocacy of conservative Christian views and rights, the AFA provide services for civil rights law, and they provide advice for those “ex gays” wishing to find ways to cope with celibacy, and even to adopt a heterosexual lifestyle. In this respect the AFA welcomes homosexuals with open arms, and helps them to stop homosexual behavior if they so wish, and helps them to cope with any effects of this. This seems to be especially valuable for those “ex-gays” who wish to fully accept conservative Christian thought. This is consistent with the typical well meaning conservative Christian way of providing solutions. E.g. “Does AFA Hate Homosexuals?”[82]

I’m a scientist so I find it hard to accept that homosexuality can be cured. There is no reliable evidence for it. I do believe that support groups can help homosexuals adopt a celibate or otherwise non-homosexual lifestyle. Belief and community seems to be a large part of the support. This is mostly about having the right to believe and choose, rather than any scientific issue on whether it works or is damaging or not. The consensus seems to be that there is no evidence that conversion therapy works, and there is no evidence that it is damaging. Or at least all evidence for efficacy and potential harm is anecdotal.” anecdotal reports of "cures" are counterbalanced by anecdotal claims of psychological harm.”[83] Therefore, psychologists and psychiatrists generally don’t recommend it, but they generally don’t try to abolish it, because people still should have the right to choose.

Editors other than myself here seem to have tried hard to keep the conservative Christian term on its own in the leading sentence of this article and to distribute that term across the article. It seems quite inconsistent then to label the AFA homophobic when in fact they embrace homosexuals who want to accept the conservative Christian way of thinking. And it also seems highly inconsistent to insist on a category for the AFA and not apply it to all conservative Christian oriented activities and groups, such as ex-gay support groups and countless believers of conservative Christian thought who are engaged in as wide a set of activities as the AFA. Hal Cross 15:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Technically, I would guess that it should be included in the homophobia category because of its opposition to LGBT rights. OTOH, I wonder if that category name is itself non-neutral. I seem to remember it used to be (still is?) called LGBT-rights opposition or something like that, which is a more neutral term. Ngchen 16:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

There's been a few naming and deletion proposals for the category (they're linked from the category talk page). In each case, community consensus was to keep it. Orpheus 16:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Further proof of the AFA and homophobia is posted here. Homophobia is a neutral term and if Hal Cross does not believe it is a neutral term, then he can start go to CfD and state his concerns there, but he should not remove the category for neutrality reasons in absence of a CfD decision. I see no reason to remove the category just because Hal Cross, who has often misunderstood Wikipedia policy, believes having this category is a NPOV violation. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 17:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Its an accusation and part of a controversy. The AFA say homosexual activity is a sin. Those who disagree call the AFA homophobic. According to the categorization recommendation [84], that means the cat shouldn't be applied. Hal Cross 17:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Church of England's Homophobia Exposed [85]. Should we put the Church of England in the homophobia category? Hal Cross 17:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Catholicism and homophobia? They oppose gay rights apparently. Should they get the homophobia category? e.g. [86][87]Hal Cross 18:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Muslim homophobia [88]. However, I don't see these groups in the homophobia cat:[89]Hal Cross 18:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:CAT does not state "the cat shouldn't be applied."—Christopher Mann McKay^talk 18:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It states this: "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option.". Hal Cross 18:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If an organisation dedicates a significant portion of its time to opposing gay rights then it belongs in the homophobia category. That includes the AFA and many American Christian organisations. It probably rules out the Church of England, for who it's a fairly minor issue. I can see arguments for including the CoE and Catholic Church in that category though. Orpheus 18:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hal Cross is correct here. Homophobia is defined as "an irrational fear of homosexuality" (MW). It's an inherently non-neutral value judgment - labeling something as "irrational". If there is dispute over whether AFA's positions are irrational, as there clearly is, the category should not apply. An "anti-gay" category be more appropriate, since it is trivially verifiable that the group does in fact oppose gays (or the "gay agenda" or however you want to put it). - Merzbow 20:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow. You really cherry picked that definition. Here's the entire definition:

irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals. (MW)

It's not impossible or even illogical to argue that the AFA's discriminatory attitude towards gays is irrational. That failed Disney Boycott comes to mind. Also, Wikipedia's entry on homophobia doesn't place the "irrational" qualifier on the term, though it does state that dictionaries use it. It's certainly controversial, but I'm not sure that warrants removal of the category. AniMate 20:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw the RFC and wanted to comment. I do not like this category. Applying it to the AFA seems like a slap in the face more than a neutral providing of information. This seems to be a direct result of the fact that the term has more than one meaning. I think that a category with more than one meaning is a recipe for disorder. If someone said "Joe Straczynski is a sci-fi writer", then that would seem to be neutral. However, "AFA is homophobic" does not seem to be neutral. What exact information are we attempting to convey? That AFA is fearful? That AFA opposes gay rights? If the latter, a category "Opposing Gay Rights" should be created and applied. That would seem neutral. Eiler7 21:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

We're allowed to use words that have multiple definitions. It's up to the reader to, frankly, read. If I don't read the entire article, and make assumptions based on my (mis)interpretation of a category, whose fault is that? Mine. Not the category. Homophobia is not a phobia, it's a term that describes those who are fearful, hateful, or oppositional towards lesbian, gay, and bisexual people/organizations/movements. This defines the AFA. The whole they aren't homophobic because they say "we help gays by turning them straight" is the part that's non-neutral (SPS/V problems there - the AFA isn't allowed to absolve itself of homophobia). --Cheeser1 22:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Cheeser. Most words have multiple meanings; if you have a problem with homophobia having two meanings and due to this you believe it is a bad category, then you would need to address that at WP:CfD, not on this talk page.

Homophobic means to discriminate against homosexuals. You state it is a "slap in the face" to add the category; however, the AFA is largely involved in the subject of homophobia and stating that, even if you think it is a "slap in the face" is what should be done; Wikipedia is not a place to remove neutral terms (in categories) for the sole purpose some people may view homophobia as something wrong or immoral.

Would you also agree it is a "slap in the face" to have the Ku Klux Klan article have the categories: anti-Semitism, anti-Catholicism, and racism categories? They are all dealing with the KKK’s discrimination against other groups. Do you suggest removing all of these categories off the KKK article and other similar articles?

You give no reasons for why you think homophobia is not neutral, rather you just state it "does not seem to be neutral." Please explain on the reasons why you think the term homophobia is not neutral, because I can’t see how it is not a neutral term.

Also, creating another category called "Opposing Gay Rights" would be the same thing as “Homophobia”, as homophobia means to discriminate against homosexuals, such as advocating homosexuals not have equal rights. Also, AFA does not only discriminate against gays by advocating them to have less rights, but also discriminates against homosexuals in other ways. Therefore, creating this new category you suggested would be a bad idea.

—Christopher Mann McKay^talk 23:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If anti-Semitism is ambiguous, then similar reasoning might apply. Homophobia is not neutral as it lumps together anti-gay-rights people with people who fear homosexuals. There would definitely be a guilt-by-association issue which would be avoided by an Opposition to Gay Rights category. I believe gay rights activitists can label opponents as homophobic. It is a way to advocate for their views and even attack. They can do that but we, as an encylopedia need not follow suit. 23:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eiler7 (talk • contribs)

I wouldn't be opposed to creating a category called "Opposition to Gay Rights", though I think there must be a more artful way of stating that aside from "Homophobia". I don't consider them the same at all. Opposition to gay rights is highly specific, and would alleviate the controversy surrounding this rather minor point in the article. It would also allow us to collect others with similar ideology into a category that would cause less controversy. My understanding of the category as it relates to this article is that it is based on their opposition to gay rights. Where's Anita Bryant, George Bush, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh? They all, as well as a myriad of others, have expressed opposition to equal rights for homosexuals, but they're not in the homophobia category... and if we tried to put them in it there would be a major fight on our hands. Let's streamline the category, make it specific, and then we'd be able to have a category that full of this specific type of homophobia. AniMate 23:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I would not be opposed to a category Anti-Homosexual. I think that can be jusitified given the following sentence in the article "We believe homosexuality is immoral". I think that category is different from the Homophobia one. Eiler7 00:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

AniMate, go ahead and create "Opposition to Gay Rights" category, but don't replace "Homophobia" with it because, as I have stated before, the AFA discriminates against homosexuals more than just advocating them having less rights than heterosexuals. For example, AFA has stated "We want to outlaw public homosexuality" and Leslie Katz, a San Francisco board member, in reponse to an AFA advertising campaign about homosexuals stated, "It is not an exaggeration to say that there is a direct correlation between these acts of discrimination, such as when gays and lesbians are called sinful and when major religious organizations say they can change if they tried, and the horrible crimes committed against gays and lesbians." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher Mann McKay (talk • contribs) 00:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Eiler, anti-" is a very vague word. You were complaining how "homophobia" has multiple meanings, but "anti-" has many more meanings. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 00:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's put it this way - the AFA believes homosexuality is an abomination. How does that not constitute something the fear? They spend night and day trying to keep homosexuality away from children, media, families, etc. They're very afraid of it. The only source or claim that I've seen that the AFA isn't homophobic, besides what particular users here happen to think, is the AFA itself. These groups are notorious for trying to make it sound like they're helping gays, but that does not mean they actually are. --Cheeser1 02:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be open to some sort of "anti-something" category. It needs to be specific and I'd still apply caution over that as thats necessary when considering categories. The discrimination point is still controversial and as such makes the homophobia category unusable. The AFA organize boycotts for members of the public to protest against what they see as discrimination against them. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion (conservative Christian, Catholic, beliefs etc). As it says in the Charity Navigator link [90] the AFA help defend civil rights. So according to the full MW definition that makes it most definitely controversial. Arguable both ways.

Just looking at the category again [91] what it needs is more concepts about homophobia, and certainly not a list of organizations or religions that oppose specific activities of what gay activists propose. Remember there are also organizations that have responded to the AFA by retracting the special treatment they offered homosexuals and not heterosexuals. It would really be too much to fill the cat with such organizations. Stick with concepts and the reader is served well. Organizations and religions can be mentioned in the concept articles. Hal Cross 02:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You are largely misreading the Charity Navigator. It says nothing about the AFA help defending civil rights. The AFA has advocated against the following civil rights: equal protection - the AFA voiced opposition over the Employment Non-Discrimination Act; freedom of religion - AFA urged subscribers to write their Congressional representatives and urge them to create a "law making the Bible the book used in the swearing-in ceremony of representatives and senators"; freedom of speech - NEA funding and pornography related boycotts. There are many more examples… —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 04:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

They are doing it to make sure the civil rights of the traditional family are not restricted. That includes the right to state passages of the bible (freedom of religion and freedom of expression). The issue is discrimination against the conservative Christian way. The Charity Navigator states:

• "Public Benefit : Advocacy and Civil Rights" Hal Cross 04:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

P.s, when you have "ex-gays" among the multitude of boycotters (Btw I believe according to science they are still homosexual in orientation), joining boycotts to protest against what they believe to be a homosexual agenda that puts homosexual rights above heterosexual rights, freedom of expression etc, it would seem to me that homophobia is intensely controversial and out of the question as a category. Hal Cross 04:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

If the category is a problem, this is not the place for this discussion. Try Category talk:Homophobia if you think the category needs to be deleted. However, that argument is not relevant here. So long as this category exists, there are verifiable sources (ie not the AFA itself, Hal...) stating that the AFA is anti-gay/homophobic/discriminatory. The fact that the AFA would not admit it is obviously not a counter-point that we should be considering. --Cheeser1 04:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

We do have to discuss and take into account the meaning of the category. Otherwise we end up neglecting important factors. This is important when determining whether to place a controversial subject into -any- category. If a subject is not self-evident (which it isn't in this case, in part due to the definition of homophobia) or uncontroversial (its definitely controversial), then is should not go into that category. Hal Cross 07:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Charity Navigator link

Hal, you can't use the Charity Navigator summary to support your opinion. They copy their summary of the AFA *directly* from the AFA's own website and don't seem to exercise any editorial judgement whatsoever. This has been pointed out to you before, and it's not appropriate to keep claiming that they are a reliable source. It's like claiming Google as an independent source because of the summary you get after each link on the results page. Orpheus 04:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I have replied before that the Charity Navigator give the AFA the highest rating of a charity for the social benefit of: Advocacy and Civil Rights. That is their view. Hal Cross 06:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

That's simply not true. Read their methodology page - they don't evaluate the charity's activities, just the money going in and out. Orpheus 07:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

In countries that are democracies, such as the US, organizations that advocate any belief or viewpoint are welcome, and in line with the spirit of Charity Navigator, the AFA are rated highly. This is how charities are categorized "we use a classification tool that allows us to evaluate charities fairly and accurately[92]." They offer a public benefit[93]. That is the category that Charity Navigator has chosen for the AFA. That is their considered view. Hal Cross 07:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

What does the political system have to do with anything? The rating system is purely financial. It doesn't talk at all about what the charity does or what effect they have. The only thing you could use Charity Navigator as a source for is the financial information. Orpheus 08:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Political system: Democracy. Related subjects: Advocacy and Civil Rights. Charity Navigator states: "Our approach to rating charities is driven by those two objectives: helping givers and celebrating the work of charities."[94] Hal Cross 08:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

And from their "How do we rate charities" page: We base our evaluations on the financial information each charity provides in its informational tax returns, or IRS Forms 990. It is a data aggregation service, that is all. Orpheus 08:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Charity Navigator does not rate private foundations.[95] They state "Public charities have a broad-base of support from the general public as well as variety of other funding sources." Clearly many people, base their views on a particular charity on how well they provide a public benefit. Charity Navigator are celebrating this. Hal Cross 09:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Hal Cross 09:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

That is simply wrong. Charity Navigator bases their ratings SOLELY ON FINANCIAL INFORMATION. I don't know how I can emphasise this more - you seem to be totally ignoring reality. They limit their database to public charities, yes, but the *ratings* are not based on any sort of celebration or judgement of worth - just the financial information. Orpheus 10:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Orpheus, I would not recommend shouting in caps, and accusing me of deceit really isn’t helping proceedings [96]. No personal attacks please and assume good faith.

I am looking at Charity Navigator’s data based upon their stated objectives for rating charities “Our approach to rating charities is driven by those two objectives: helping givers and celebrating the work of charities.”[97]. They seem to be celebrating the AFA and giving it the highest rating for a charity. Hal Cross 11:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

That's synthesis. How many times does it have to be repeated? Their ratings are based solely on financial data. They are not celebrating anything. Orpheus 11:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Its a quoted statement of Charity Navigator's objectives for rating: helping givers and celebrating the work of charities. Charity Navigator rate the AFA with four stars and its stated qualitative rating is "Exceptional". Exceptional is a qualitative rating. Hal Cross 12:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

That is why they do their ratings. That is not what the ratings mean. The rating of "exceptional" refers solely to the ratio of money in to money out. The Charity Navigator site explains this very clearly, and I've even posted the exact page. You are implying that Charity Navigator rates what the AFA does as exceptional. That is not true. Charity Navigator rates the ratio of money received to money spent as exceptional. They make no statement whatsoever about what that money is spent on, which is what this dispute is about. Orpheus 13:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Charity Navigator classifies the AFA as a charity that provides the public benefit of: Advocacy and Civil Rights. For that cause it is rated with four stars as exceptional. Hal Cross 15:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hal, that is not true. Charity Navigator says that the AFA spends an exceptional percentage of money donated to them on non-administrative expenses. That is what the rating means. That website makes no statement about whether what the AFA does benefits anyone. You are repeating a falsehood. Orpheus 15:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Evidence:[98]Hal Cross 16:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

That page refers to their financial data. Not what they do with the money. It does not say that they "provide the public benefit of Advocacy and Civil Rights". Orpheus 16:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

As below:[99]Hal Cross 02:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, yes. Let us put it that way. Let us also put it this way: the AFA also thinks sex outside of marriage is an abomination and try to help keep kids from engaging in it. Does that make them genophobic (afraid of sex)? They also think gambling, divorce, drinking, doing drugs, overtly sexual TV commercials, sexualizing of children, hate speech against Christians, abortion, and liberal indoctination of kids in school are abominations. Are they phobic about all those things, too? What I'm trying to say is that you can't cherry pick one item to "prove" that they are phobic of something and ignore everything else they are against. They actually are against all forms of immorality, indecency and obscenity (as they define those things based upon their beliefs). Indeed, they have as much, if not more, material about other issues (like the ones I mentioned above) and labeling them "homophobic" is unfair, definitely not NPOV and probably even runs afoul of WP:UNDUE. Additionally, the term "homophobic" is so broad in its definition that it's virtually meaningless. Jinxmchue 07:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not an argument for removing this article from this category. It's an argument for renaming this category to something else. Orpheus 08:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

"Stupid, lame, childish ad hominem attack," maybe? Seriously, though, only the last sentence could be construed as an argument for renaming the cat. Jinxmchue 17:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The arguments against the category seem to boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Nobody has objected to having the AFA categorised with the other organisations that are in the Homophobia category. That suggests to me that if you object to the *term* homophobia, then the appropriate response is to have Category:Homophobia renamed. Otherwise you'll end up with two categories that mean exactly the same thing.

Regarding individuals who might end up in the category, there's two things to remember. First, Categry:Homophobe, which was exclusively applied to individuals, used to exist and was deleted per WP:BLP. Secondly, the consensus that has arisen regarding individuals in the homophobia category is quite specific. It can only be applied to individuals who make opposition to gay rights a fundamental part of their public life. For instance, Fred Phelps clearly qualifies, but Tim Hardaway doesn't. Anita Bryant is an edge case. None of that is overly relevant to the AFA, though - it's an organisation, so WP:BLP doesn't apply.

Also note that Category:Homophobia isn't just for organisations that oppose gay rights. It can be used to categorise organisations that fight against homophobia as well - for instance, European Fundamental Rights Agency. Orpheus 04:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Its -how- the category relates to this article, and similar articles, that matters. If even a small amount of care is taken towards NPOV, the category is still inappropriate due to the controversies involved over the AFA, gay activism, and the term homophobia in itself.

I have objected to other organizations being in the category and according to the comments above I believe other editors here may agree with me. Its nothing to do with like or dislike. The category should contain concepts, such as Nazism, and Heterosexism. And as with people, any organization can be part of the concept’s articles. If you want to apply care over categorization, simply focus on concepts. There are plenty more concepts out there that can be added to the category, and that'll give you plenty of opportunities to appropriately place the AFA in any of those concept articles. Organizations with controversies can be added to lists where NPOV will be more likely to be followed. Hal Cross 05:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I have read all the above.

I still believe that homophobia is a non-neutral term and could lead the casual reader to the conclusion that we are condemning the AFA. I would not feel the same about the category "Organizations that think homosexuality is immoral" if it existed and was applied to the article.

There may be historical reasons why we are where we are in wikipedia. Nonetheless, the use of bad categories in the past does not imply that we should continue to use them in the future.

If the anti-semitism category is renamed to "claimed anti-semitism" or both categories existed (and were used when appropriate), then this might be a step forward.

Similarly, the "Christian organizations" category might end up as "Organizations that label themselves Christian". We could even come up with a convention of adding "(qualified)" to the end of some categories. This would be a clue to the reader that the category can only be fully understood after reading its full definition. This convention would only be used if a category name was long but still not specific enough to be totally clear.

The NPOV policy requires that all views be represented. The article is in the Homophobia category. The organisation would not agree that they are in the business of homophobia. The article is not in the non-Homophobia category. It looks like we are showing a non-neutral preference in our handling of views.

Homophobia is mentioned in the controversy section of the article. So, the suggestion is controversial.

I withdraw my idea about an Anti-Homosexual category. "Organizations that think homosexuality is immoral" would be okay with me.

If people are reluctant to create categories with longer names, then I would put it to them that it is better to suffer such types of categories than to compromise on neutrality.

I am not sure that EFRA being in the category is the right thing either. Perhaps a related category can be created. Eiler7 12:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, Eiler7, all those points amount to a renaming of the category. If you feel that is the appropriate course, you should file a WP:CFD about Category:Homophobia.

The other thing to remember is that the category is not an accusation that the AFA are homophobic. It's to do with any organisation that invests a lot of energy in practicing homophobia, discussing it, fighting against it, whatever. The point is that the AFA are involved in the debate - that's not controversial. We've got plenty of reliable sources to show that. If nothing else, the fact that they campaign against a homosexual agenda puts them squarely in this category. Orpheus 13:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hal Cross, Charity navigator says nothing about civil rights; you are misreading it. “Public Benefit : Advocacy and Civil Rights” is the category that Charity Navigator places over 200 advocate groups in and many of the advocacy groups have nothing to do with civil rights; it’s just that advocacy and civil rights are in the same category because civil rights are a type of advocacy, so Charity Navigator did not created a separate category for civil rights. It states nowhere that the AFA is involved in civil rights. You misinterpreted this, like you misinterpreted many other sources, guidelines, and policies. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 17:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is the Charity Navigator methodology section.[100] It shows their approach to rating in the second paragraph. "Our approach to rating charities is driven by those two objectives: helping givers and celebrating the work of charities. " . They rate the AFA with four stars [101], which stands for Exceptional, on the qualitative rating [102]. Which means "Exceeds industry standards and outperforms most charities in its Cause."Hal Cross 04:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

That is why they rate the charities. It does not relate at all to the ratings. It's the reason they bother to do it. What you are saying is completely wrong. From the qualitative rating page: By utilizing our ratings, givers can truly know how a charity's financial health compares with that of its peers and of charities throughout the country. The qualitative rating ONLY talks about the finances. Not what they do. Why do you persist in pushing this outright falsehood? Orpheus 04:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Category discussion - pt 2

OK, time for a section break. This discussion is getting ridiculously disorganised, so let's split it up a bit. Keep the rebuttal in a section at the bottom, so we don't end up with another mess. Orpheus 11:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Arguments for keeping Category:Homophobia

Make your arguments here for keeping American Family Association in Category:Homophobia. Orpheus 11:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The category is applicable and verifiable. The fact that some people think it's a "accusation" is irrelevant. I consider the category Nazism to be accusatory. Would I argue that it's unfair to put Adolph Hitler in there? Absolutely not. Recha Freier belongs in that category too, even though he wasn't a Nazi. The point is that the AFA is involved in the gay-rights debate, actively and publicly. They oppose gay rights at almost every turn, consider homosexuality to be an abomination, and do their best to keep homosexual content out of music/TV/etc. Even if you don't consider them homophobic, they still belong in this category. If this becomes an issue of "that category needs to be changed" then take it up there. That issue is not relevant to this article. You'll note thought at Category talk:Homophobia that this has been proposed repeatedly and that such things have been rejected repeatedly, because they are, of course, irrelevant unless you have a good reason why this term is not allowed to be used (it's not an accusation, it's not an insult, it's not nonNPOV, it's not unverifiable). --Cheeser1 15:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I would also add to this that what the AFA describes themselves as is not relevant here. They claim that they aren't homophobic, but this is Wikipedia, not The Internet Press Release Archives. We should be objective enough to look at actions and third-party opinions, not self-description. Orpheus 15:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

But WP:ID addresses this issue:

"Where known, use terminology that subjects use for themselves (self-identification). This can mean using the term an individual uses for himself or herself, or using the term a group most widely uses for itself."

If the AFA describes themselves as not homophobic, then that's what should take primacy over most likely heavily biased third-party opinions. Jinxmchue 17:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you please provide a soure, as I don't remember the AFA stating they are "not-homophobic" —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 17:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, now, that brings up the issue of if they have to outright say they are not homophobic in order to not be considered homophobic. To put the issue another way, do they have to say they aren't Nazis for them to not be considered Nazis? There's a lot of things that they aren't, but do they really need to say they aren't any of them? And is it really a phobia or just a matter of their religious beliefs? Personally speaking, I have no fear of homosexuals, but my religion condemns the behavior (the behavior, mind you - not the person) as it does a lot of other behaviors. I'm sure most other professing Christians are the same. Ultimately, I think that if the article is going to include the accusation, then it should be made very clear that it is a third-party accusation - e.g. "Group A considers the AFA to be homophobic." Of course, then the question becomes whether or not an organization can be diagnosed as having a phobia or its members en masse as such. Jinxmchue 19:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The way this is handled legally during controversies is by having the right to silence. A controversy occurs when someone is being accused, libeled, or slandered even when the victim is silent about the matter. In the case of the AFA, the controversy is also rebutted with statements about the AFA's objective to love their neighbor, to provide advice and services for homosexuals, to pray for homosexuals to accept God into their life and so on. Its all part of the controversy. Hal Cross 07:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You still provided no source to back up your WP:ID claim. You stated "is it really a phobia or just a matter of their religious beliefs" - the AFA has a phobia of homosexuals, which is a matter of their religion beliefs; no "or." That's great you don't fear homosexuals, but your religious beliefs are not relevant; the AFA fears homosexuals, which is relevant. Also, the AFA being involved in the subject of homophobia is not a third-party accusation, it is a fact. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 19:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not my claim, but even if it was, the burden of proof wouldn't fall on me since it would require proving a negative. The burden of proof falls on those of you who claim the AFA is homophobic. A phobia is a clinical diagnosis. Do you have a clinical diagnosis for the organization? Barring that, can you point to exactly where the AFA states for a fact, "We fear homosexuals"? If all you have are third-party accusations, that doesn't make it a fact. People accuse other people of all sorts of things every single day. President Bush has often been accused of having a retarded-level IQ. Does that make it a fact? Of course not. The only fact is that a third-party is making the accusation. Jinxmchue 20:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You state that I must show proof of WP:ID, but that is simply not true. Your argument was "If the AFA describes themselves as not homophobic, then that's what should take primacy over most likely heavily biased third-party opinions," so it is on you to prove the "AFA describes themselves as not homophobic." Also, phobia does not have to be a clinical diagnosis, it is term to describe fear (and in this case discrimination). I don't know what "third-party accusations" you are referring to. There are many facts that the AFA fears homosexuals. Here is one of many examples, a quote from the AFA, "indifference or neutrality toward the homosexual rights movement will result in society's destruction by allowing civil order to be redefined and by plummeting ourselves, our children, and grandchildren into an age of godlessness." Obviously this statement shows the AFA fears "the homosexual rights movement will result in society's destruction." There are many more examples. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 20:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC) WP:I is a "nonbinding guideline" anyways, so it's not reason enough to remove the category. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 20:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC) Two more quotes from the AFA since you have a problem with third-party sources, "We fear the focus will now become homosexual indoctrination among young girls" and "We oppose the gay movement's efforts to convince our society that their behavior is normal because we fear the judgment of God on our nation." —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 20:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, it's not my argument, and you are still asking for me or someone else to prove a negative. And I didn't say >>you<< needed to show proof for WP:ID. I said that if the AFA says they're not homophobic (I don't know if they do or not), then that takes primacy over third-party accusations according to WP:ID. I'm not making any argument for or against them being homophobic. I'm simply showing you what Wikipedia policies, guidelines and other rules need to be followed. If you or someone else wants to accuse the AFA of being homophobic, then it is up to you to prove it and do so without making third-party, hostile sources into complete fact or violating WP:SYNTH as you just did. The statements you cite don't prove homophobia and claiming they do violates SYNTH. All those statements do is prove that the AFA opposes the behavior and agenda of homosexuals, not the homosexuals themselves. Look at it this way: you're obviously opposed to the AFA and their fundamentalist Christian agenda, but does that make you fearful of fundamentalist Christians? Could I cite your statements as proof that you are fearful of them? In both cases, of course not. Jinxmchue 21:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Here. Read this and see if it bears out the "homophobic" slur against the AFA. This part is especially important:

"A true Christian loves his neighbor, but should hate the sin itself and should not tolerate the acceptance of sin whatsoever. Even if your neighbor makes a bad choice, a true Christian still loves them and respects them because we are all created equal in His eyes. There is the recognition that there is more than meets the physical eye; it is a spiritual battle. A true Christian isn’t going to despise his neighbor when bad choices are made, but will pray for them and do the best they can to show them God’s love."

Summarized, that amounts to "love the sinner, not the sin." It could easily be changed to specifically state "love the homosexual, not the homosexuality," or "love the murderer, not the murdering," or "love the thief, not the thieving." Since it is the sin and not the person(s) being opposed, then it cannot be homophobia as that means fear of the person as a homosexual, not the homosexuality in and of itself. Jinxmchue 21:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why you are referencing WP:I if you aren't using it for an argument for removing the category. I'm well aware of WP:SYN and I have not violated it. "AFA opposes the behavior and agenda of homosexuals, not the homosexuals themselves" - This is not true. For example, Jews in WWII feared the behavior and agenda of Nazis; therefore, they feared Nazis themselves. Jews viewed killing and putting Jews into camps as sinful (just like AFA views homosexuals as sinful), but Jews still feared Nazis, not only the Nazi sin. To answer your question, yes I am very afraid of fundamentalist Christians, mainly because of their political influence in American politics. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 21:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The Nazis didn't love or feel compassion for homosexuals. The AFA (and all similar conservative Christian groups and religions) state that they love homosexuals and reach out to them to accept the teachings of God and scripture. Gay activists call the AFA Nazis. The AFA rebut that accusation and continue to provide information and services for what they see as helping homosexuals do what the conservative Christian belief system would believe is the good thing to do. Its a compassion driven activity. Hal Cross 02:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I was not stating anything about the Nazis feeling compassion for homosexuals. I was comparing Jews fearing Nazis because of their actions to the AFA fearing homosexuals because of their actions because Jinxmchue was claiming the AFA fears the homosexuals actions and their "sin", but not homosexuals themselves. It does not matter if the AFA loves homosexuals. Jews loved the Nazis, didn't they? I'm not one of those religious fanatics, but I was under the impression Jews and Christians believe they should love everyone or something crazy like that: "love thy neighbor." —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 05:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:ID seems irrelevant to me. Charles Manson probably doesn't think of himself as a murderer. Augusto Pinochet, Fidel Castro, and Saddam Hussein probably don't consider themselves dictators. "Homophobia" is not an accusation category, and even if it were, the fact that the AFA opposes the gay-rights movement is well documented. --Cheeser1 22:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• I think that the AFA belongs in the homophobia category for two reasons. One, the belief they hold that there is a homosexual agenda which must be stopped, and the efforts they go to in their advocacy to fight it. Two, their support and promotion of the ex-gay movement. In both of those cases there is a large amount of evidence against their position, and still they keep on with it. That's the irrational part. Particularly regarding the agenda, their actions seem almost fearful, and they're certainly aimed at inciting a moral panic. Either they are homophobic themselves, or they are inciting homophobia - either way, they belong in this category. Orpheus 04:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Also regarding the accusation thing, remember that this category isn't called Category:Organisations that hate gays or Category:Evil homophobic bastards or even Category:Homophobe (which was rightly deleted as being accusatory and POV). It's Category:Homophobia, a neutral term that summarises a wider debate about gay rights and discrimination. Orpheus 04:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is the difference between Cat:Homophobe and Cat:Homophobia? Jinxmchue 05:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Technically, Manson isn't a murderer. He was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder, but in any case, he was found guilty of his crime in a court of law. Calling a person or group "homophobic" is hardly the same. Who is calling the person/group "homophobic?" What qualifications do they have to do so? What authority do they have to do so? You'll have to excuse me, but I really don't think that homosexual rights groups calling the AFA "homophobic" have either the qualifications or the authority to do so. That makes the use of the word an accusation at best and a slur at worst. Jinxmchue 05:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "What authority do they have to do so"? Wikipedia users have the authority to label an organization as involved in the subject of homophobia if it is reported in multiple reliable sources, which in this case it is. There is more than enough proof on this article and through outside sources to prove the AFA is involved in the subject of homophobia; it demonstrated through multiple sources, not only "homosexual rights groups." Although, I don't think "homosexual rights groups" are any less reliable than other news sources; you are not to judge if they have "qualifications or the authority" because according to WP:RS they are reliable sources. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 05:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC) "accusation at best and a slur " - you can't be more wrong; the category accuses the AFA of nothing, but only states the AFA involved in the subject of homophobia It is not a slur. Do you have any proof of homophobia being a slur? Oh course you don’t. Dictionary entries for homophobia shown no such mention of it being offensive, disparaging, or a slur. And why you are even debating this here? It belong on Category Talk:Homophobia beacuse you have issues with the category itself. 05:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The category as it stands contains two AFA related articles[103]. That would lead the casual reader to the conclusion that Wikipedia is condemning the AFA. The use of the label homophobia by critics of the AFA is part of a controversy and Wikipedia would seem to disallow its own siding in that controversy. Wikipedia would most likely keep out of any such controversy with all such religious groups. Hal Cross 07:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Arguments for keeping a similar category

Make your arguments here for keeping American Family Association in a category relating to anti-gay activism that isn't called Homophobia. Orpheus 11:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Arguments for removing the category entirely

Make your arguments here for removing American Family Association from Category:Homophobia and not replacing it with an equivalent category. Orpheus 11:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'm here for the RFC. I think that the cite that Hal Cross provides at the beginning of this discussion is an adequate argument for removing the cat. I would say in addition (and this should in no way be construed as an argument in support of the AFA, or, for that matter, an argument that they are not homophobic) that one should use special care in the use of categories and infoboxes, because they are, in effect, beyond the reach of the NPOV policy. If an argument is made in the body of the article that the AFA is homophobic, it can be rebutted if the AFA or its supporters wish to do so. There is no provision for that in the case of categories or infoboxes. --Marvin Diode 23:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

But the fact is, a category is a category, not an indictment. Nobody says "If an article is categorized as relating to homophobia, the organization/group is automatically homophobic as a matter of fact." Jumping to that conclusion might be possible, but it's not our fault if people are making unnecessary leaps in logic. There are groups/individuals that are verifiably associated with homophobia. They fall into this category. --Cheeser1 03:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Here we disagree. I think that it is a natural and foreseeable conclusion, not an "unnecessary leap of logic," and I think that we ought to take responsibility here. We can inform the reader about AFA's homophobia in the body of the article, where NPOV applies, and we have certainly done our duty. The category is unnecessary, and I think that these comments are very useful and clear. --Marvin Diode 21:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, we're supposed to report what's verifiable, not what might be open to (mis)interpretation. All categories are unnecessary - Wikipedia would function without them. But they are used to group articles that have something in common. The AFA is notably and prominently noted as an organization that opposes what it calls the "gay agenda." Reliable sources can easily verify that this organization is, at least, associated with homophobia. We do not need to make any "value" judgments - this "value judgment" or "accusation" line of thinking is totally irrelevant. --Cheeser1 21:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's "not our fault" that people get that impression from a category that lists the AFA next to Nazis and Fred Phelps. *rolls eyes* Jinxmchue 21:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The European Fundamental Rights Agency is also grouped in the category "next to Nazis and Fred Phelps"; what is your point? —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 21:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The main argument for removing the category seems to be consistent with the categorization guidelines[104]. The homophobia category, apart from being controversial in itself, is applied in the AFA article only according to one side of a controversy. There is no provision in the homophobia categorization for the other side of the controversy (no annotations with categories). Thus, the AFA article should be removed from the category. Hal Cross 05:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Jinxmchue, the category emphatically should not list the AFA next to Nazis. That is the reason Category:Homophobic violence was created - it was conceded that it wasn't appropriate to list the AFA with organisations or individuals that physically attacked gay people. The subcategory Nazism was moved, I'm not entirely sure why the article wasn't - when it becomes unprotected I'll make that change. Orpheus 23:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Please discuss the arguments here to avoid a threading nightmare. Orpheus 11:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact is "homophobia" is a value-laden judgment that is simply not encyclopedic. You've seen that that primary definition in multiple dictionaries is irrational fear of homosexuality. This label is one of those that is inherently derogatory and one that a group/person would never label themselves as (irrational). "Nazism" is not the same thing, it is a technical term describing association with a specific ideology (and plenty of Nazis describe themselves as such).

The relevant Wikipedia guidelines says that "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option." It's certainly controversial, being inherently negative. A category is a binary thing. One cannot slap it on and hope readers will read the whole article for the balanced view. - Merzbow 18:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You are stating that groups should not be under the category "Homophobia," but there are multiple groups under that category, so your comments belong on WP:CfD or Category Talk:Homophobia. Besides that your argument is flawed: anti-Semitic and anti-Catholic can both be considered “value-laden judgment” categories, but they exist; you quote WP:CAT, but you did not provide a reliable source that states the AFA being classified as being involved in the subject of homophobia as controversial (“shown through reliable sources to be controversial”); the AFA does fear homosexuals, so I'm confused as to why you saying "irrational fear" is reason not to use the category; and what an organization would label themselves is irreverent. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 18:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I have proposed deletion of the category on the category talk page. Eiler7 21:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the "primary" definition includes the entire primary definition. That means it encompasses opposition to gays/gay-rights movement/etc. And don't make me bust out a few papers on homophobia. This whole "calling them homophobic is unfair" seems a bit played out. --Cheeser1 22:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Homophobia has a definition. If it fits and there are revelant citations and proof then that should be it really. Whether you believe the term can be used as an accusation is a personal opinion and not at all relevant. It's ridiculous to suggest that an editor can tell that the term is being used disparagingly! In the case of encyclopedic content, the dictionary definition is used --Neon white 00:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

According to the subject, the term doesn’t fit at all in the AFA’s case. The discrimination issue is part of a controversy. The AFA are accused of discrimination against homosexuals and the gay activists are accused of discrimination against the AFA/conservative Christians. The phobia issue is also a controversy due to the presence of homosexuals in the AFA, and the provision of services for becoming “ex-gay” and to accept the teachings of God according to scripture. Its not self-evident, or uncontroversial. It would also lead to the application of the homophobia category to a huge range of Abrahamic religions and religious groups, such as Catholic church, Islam, the Jewish faith, Protestantism, including the companies that agree with them to remove pro-gay benefits because they agree with those religious groups and denominations. Hal Cross 02:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hal, stop ignoring what's actually already addressed. You're making strawman arguments. This is from the talk page of the category, under Guidelines for use: It is appropriate to use the category on articles that involve a highly prominent, well documented example where the subject has exhibited homophobic tendencies and beliefs (Fred Phelps, for example, is the epitome of homophobia). I would not use the category merely to describe every right-wing (and in some cases left-wing) politician or public figure who simply does not support gay rights... You've fabricated a frivolous and invalid concern. Furthermore, you should not call it a "phobia" - it is not a phobia. This reflects your continued insistence that you can cherry pick the words and phrases in the definition that suit you. --Cheeser1 03:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is the relevant text: "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option."[105]Hal Cross 04:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. We are being careful of NPOV - it's verifiable that the AFA promotes homophobia and, verifiable that they engage in it (although the case is weaker for the latter). The only controversy is that they don't like being called homophobic - but they would, wouldn't they. In the mainstream press it is not controversial that the AFA advocates discrimination against gay people, which is part of Category:Homophobia. Orpheus 04:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Here, for instance, in Business Week, the columnist says "The AFA, which has an undeniable (though it tries) agenda against homosexuals living peacefully and enjoying liberties equal to straight people". A letter to the International Journal of Epidemiology by Hogg et al specifically labels the AFA and other such groups as homophobic. Orpheus 04:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

As above, according to multiple editors there seems to be problems with the use of the homophobia category, the sources provided showing critics labeling the AFA as homophobic also show a clear controversy, and the discrimination label also goes both ways and relates to the civil rights (first amendment, freedom to express and religion) issues. These issues apply to many other religious groups other than the AFA. Hal Cross 04:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

And...? Does any of this change the fact that the AFA is verifiably homophobic, or at least associated with homophobia? No. --Cheeser1 05:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The links above demonstrate controversy. The AFA is a charity that provides a public benefit of advocacy and civil rights [106]. They are highly efficient in providing that public benefit and rated as exceptional in that work. They are doing what they do: they are advocating. The authors of the research didn’t intend the information to be used as such. However, advocates are allowed to use whatever information they want to conduct their work. This is a basic right in democratic countries. There is a controversy over how to use that information, the homophobia label is used by a critic in a controversy. The related information (about critics labeling the AFA as homophobic) in the AFA article itself has been placed in a controversy section [107]. It is controversial and inappropriate according to the categorization guidelines. Hal Cross 06:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again, Chairty navigator says NOTHING about the AFA being involved in civil rights. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 18:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

As below, [108] Charity Navigator creates the categories and causes. Charity Navigator assigns the AFA to the category of Public Benefit, and assigns the AFA to the cause of Advocacy and Civil Rights. They are classifications that Charity Navigator has created. Hal Cross 02:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

And it categorizes them based on what each charity says that it does. Once again, stop obfuscating the issue. --Cheeser1 05:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Charity Navigator rates the AFA as Exceptional in "Advocacy and Civil Rights", the cause that Charity Navigator has created for a selection of charities[109]. such as the; Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty; A.J. Muste Memorial Institute; and Advocates for Children of New York. Hal Cross 06:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Which doesn't change the fact that it categorizes them based on what each charity says that it does. Once again, and for the last time, stop obfuscating the issue. You are not allowed to stick your fingers in your ears and keep repeating the same invalid thing over and over. --Cheeser1 00:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I got the point a long time ago. You and Orpheus do keep bringing up the issue though. All I am doing is replying to your repeat questions. Hal Cross 10:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I sought a third opinion on this, and the result was that the neutral editor agreed that using the information from Charity Navigator was "inappropriate". It's astounding that Hal continues to use it, after all of the reasons given from many editors why it's not appropriate. Orpheus 00:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The third opinion only said that they thought the source was not appropriate for giving a view on the stated mission of the AFA. I am not giving my opinion on that at all. I am simply stating that Charity Navigator created the classifications for a number of charities[110]. They then decided that AFA was fit for category of Public Benefit, with the cause of Advocacy and Civil Rights, and a rating of; Exceptional. Hal Cross 10:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Split the discussion

It seems to me that we are dealing with two separate issues here:

1. Should the AFA article be in a category which deals with their opposition to gay rights, their belief in a homosexual agenda and other items specifically related to homosexuality-related discrimination?
2. If so, should that category be called Category:Homophobia?

I think the most productive way to move forward is to first agree on the parameters of the discussion and then come to consensus on an solution within those parameters. The two questions above are my take on the parameters, but it's important to make sure they reflect consensus, so edit them mercilessly. Let's confine this section to getting the parameters right without discussing the outcomes, otherwise we'll end up with another mess. Orpheus 07:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)\

The discussion above seems to me to be reasonably clear and well ordered. I have no problem with new sections though.

Concerning the first point, as mentioned above, due to the nature of the AFA that according to source is classed as providing the public benefit of advocacy and civil rights [111] the article should not be in the category. As it is involved with advocating certain religious beliefs it will be involved with many controversies including the -choice to be homosexual/heterosexual- controversy. Those religious groups who advocate that homosexuality/heterosexuality is a choice will tend to be labeled homophobic by critics in a controversy. That is the case here so the category is inappropriate.Hal Cross 08:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

That source is just parroting the AFA - who itself claims that they are "public beneficiaries" and advocates of "civil rights." The fact that they say this has no bearing on whether or not here are verifiable instances of the AFA being associated with homophobia. --Cheeser1 14:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The categories (eg, public benefit) were created by personnel at Charity Navigator, and so were the classification of causes [112]. Charity Navigator then assign charities to those categories and causes; e.g. Category = Public Benefit, Cause = Advocacy and Civil Rights: [113]. They have rated the AFA as Exceptional in those causes. It is Charity Navigator who are doing the classification and rating. Hal Cross 02:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That "category," like all the content on CN, is taken verbatim from the AFA. It is not reliable. --Cheeser1 02:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

So are you saying that the AFA created the category: Public Benefit, and the cause: Advocacy and Civil Rights, which just happens to be the same as all the other charities in the category? [114]. And are you saying then, that the Charity Navigator people did not create the categories and causes presented? Hal Cross 03:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

NO HAL THEY DIDN'T. Please try to read people's comments carefully. Several of us have repeatedly explained that the groups on the CN categorize themselves. The CN is decidedly and admittedly not a source of reliable information concerning a group's political activities, policies, or other such information. Insisting that it is will not change that fact. --Cheeser1 00:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I would not recommend shouting in caps. Charity Navigator state "We made our classification as clear as possible" [115]. They classified the AFA as giving a Public Benefit: of Advocacy and Civil Rights. They rated it as Exceptional. Hal Cross 02:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

They rated the AFA's financial records as exceptional, and provide no editorial oversight for each group's self-defined categorization. Again, I've already said that. I wouldn't use caps if I didn't have to repeat the same thing over and over, Hal. --Cheeser1 03:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Financial records are one of the most independent and reliable methods for assessing the value of a charity. From this you can tell how trustworthy a charity is. Charity Navigator give AFA a value rating as Exceptional. "We celebrate and evaluate charities" [116]. Charity Navigator's objective is to help givers give, and to celebrate charities such as the AFA. Hal Cross 03:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hal, this is total nonsense. You seriously expect us to believe that the "Charity Navigator" is a reliable source of political commentary or analysis?? It's basically an aggregate charity advertising site, and all of its content comes straight from the charities. It's a self-published source with no authority, it regurgitates the AFA's own opinion of itself, and its purpose is not to give you facts or information about the politics of the group. --Cheeser1 05:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Charity navigator takes that information, and adds qualitative ratings such as Excellent, to the AFA, under categories that Charity Navigator has created: Public Benefit; Advocacy and Civil Rights. Hal Cross 10:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Good Hal! You're right. They have excellent FINANCES. Which is irrelevant. And like I've already said, the AFA picks its own category on the Charity Navigator. From the site: we use the activity code each charity selects in its filings with the IRS to determine how the charity classifies itself. --Cheeser1 05:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's look at this from another perspective. The Charity Navigator, who takes it's information directly from the AFA, believes the AFA is a civil-rights activism group. On the other hand, the Southern Poverty Law Center, a leading, recognized, verifiable leader in civil rights work. It recognizes the AFA as an anti-gay activist organization that is, prima facie, at least associated with homophobia. --Cheeser1 06:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there could possibly be any doubt that the AFA is "anti-LGBT rights", or "anti-gay-activism", but those are relatively neutral terms, simply describing a point of view (i.e., either they oppose "gay rights", "special rights", and the "gay agenda", or they do not). However, the term "homophobic" is clearly pejorative and carries connotations such as fear and aversion that the AFA would most likely reject. "Homophobic" is a loaded term, and unless the AFA has used it to refer to their "pro-family" agenda, I don't think it is an appropriate label under which to categorize the organization. So, to break it down: Anti-gay category for the AFA? YES. Category labeled "Homophobia"? NO. — DIEGO ^talk 20:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Categorization policy

I'm an admin who has spent quite a bit of time on categorization policy. I facilitated the last major overhaul of Wikipedia:Categorization about a year and a half ago. I want to explain some things about the policy. I haven't read this article, and I don't want to make a judgment about its categorization. It has been brought to my attention that my views have been quoted on this page. I'm writing this because I want to make certain that people understand my position on categorization. Also, you should understand that I am gay, and I believe that the AFA is a homophobic organization. And last, these are my views of what the current state of the categorization guidelines are. That doesn't mean that I am correct, or that the guidelines are correct. This is, after all, a wiki.

1. There appears to be consensus at CFD that we should not have categories that label people by their beliefs. For this reason we don't have Category:Racists, Category:Anti-Semites or Category:Homophobes. There are several reasons for this;
   • The labeling may be slanderous. and goes against WP:BLP
   • It is impossible to maintain without annotation.
   • It is sure to create controversy and long drawn out discussions (which seems self evident on this page)
2. There also appears to be consensus at CFD that it IS appropriate to have categories about the broader topics, like Category:Racism, Category:Anti-Semitism and Category:Homophobia. The point of these categories is NOT to be a substitute for the categories listed in #1. Articles should be in these categories if:
   • They discuss the topic.
   • The categorization by the topic is not controversial.

So the issue here is whether someone researching the topic of homophobia would be educated about the topic by reading this article, and that is somewhat obvious. So if this article discusses the topic of homophobia, it should be in the category.

Like most things at Wikipedia, there is a grey area where things are not so clear. I suspect that this article is probably in this grey area (I can't say because I haven't read it). If there is discussion about the AFA being called "homophobic" or about the AFA's objection to being called "homophobic" it might not be clear. However, I have a general rule I like to apply to these grey areas, which is this, "If an articles inclusion in a category results in pages and pages of good-faith debate, it is likely the result of a bad category, or the article being mis-categorized, if for no other reason than the amount of energy that gets diverted from more productive endeavors, and the bad feelings that get generated." -- ☑ SamuelWantman 09:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the AFA is very involved in the topic of homophobia. From the point of view of someone researching the subject, it's important to be aware of all the major players in the debate. For one thing, what counts as homophobia? The AFA have very strong views on that subject. They write a lot of articles saying that X or Y isn't homophobic, it's religious freedom. They attempt to define the parameters of the term. Personally, I think that qualifies this as a useful article in the Homophobia category. Orpheus 09:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The category seems to me to involve more of an accusation of AFA, rather than offering any explanation [117]. It seems to say Wikipedia says the AFA are homophobic, whereas there is a clear controversy. The other article (the court case) simply involves a refutation of homophobia. Its a controversy and that would seem to rule it out according to the WP guidelines on categorization, as the controversy itself cannot be annotated. This is also the case with many other religious groups who's beliefs and actions are not liked by gay activists and others who oppose those belief systems. Hal Cross 09:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

'seems to me', i.e. its your personal opnion, not a fact, your personal perception of 'homophobia' as a derogatory term is simple not relevant here. --Neon white 16:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me - refers to what I see as the imbalance in the category rather than the term homophobia itself. The homophobia term is problematic [118] and thats due to its vague definition, and poor development. Its not a scientific term. The problems with the category in the AFA article seem to me to be unsurmountable, as the categorization recommendations say that categories should not be applied if controversial in the case. The problems with the category itself make correct application in the article impossible. Hal Cross 02:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Orpheus, if is there discussion in the article that talks about the AFA's position on the term "homophobia", so it is clear that their inclusion in the category is because of the topic and not just because they are homophobic, than I'd agree that they should be in the category. If the discussion is just about how the AFA's positions are "homophobic", it probably should not. However, if there is discussion about how the AFA's positions frequently lead them to be labeled as homophobic to the extent that it has stimulated the discussion on the term "homophobia", then were back in the gray area. As an example, I think it is appropriate to put Adolph Hitler in Category:Antisemitism for this reason. --☑ SamuelWantman 10:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

In relation to the sticky subject of the homophobia category in itself, here is at least one interesting view that says the term itself is controversial and relates it to pejorative terms and value judgments. “It is also concluded that the construct of homophobia, as it is usually used, makes an illegitimately pejorative evaluation of certain open and debatable value positions, much like the former disease construct of homosexuality.” (William O'Donohue and Christine E. Caselles, "Homophobia: Conceptual, definitional, and value issues," Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment (2005)). That relates to the category itself, which makes the category highly problematic in application as in this case. Hal Cross 12:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again Hal, this could be applied to any category. The fact that something can be taken as an insult doesn't mean we're not allowed to use it. WP:NPOV means we have to be neutral in our presentation of verifiable information]. It does not say that we have to make sure that if we write an article on the AFA, nothing bad is presented about them. --Cheeser1 15:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

exactly what i was saying. Whether you take 'homophobia' to be an insult is a personal view. Anyone can view any description as a negative or a positive. it's not up to wikipedia to decide that. --Neon white 16:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

There is ample evidence to state the view that homophobia is a derogatory term[119]. Do you have any evidence to state that homophobia is a positive term? Hal Cross 02:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge, I have never removed critical information from the AFA article. That is the general trend in the AFA article, despite the broader range of AFA concerns [120], being removed without comprehensive discussion on further sourcing, and a newly sourced background/context section [121] going missing even last week [122]. As with the article, the care in categorizing is to avoid a one-sided application. The homophobia category is a one-sided part of a controversy. Hal Cross 15:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hal, you can't cherry pick things from the AFA website, or snip bits out-of-context from articles or books, in order to make claims like "The AFA is a leading figure in fighting for first amendment rights." This isn't verifiable, and you're often citing things that aren't reliable sources. Like I just said, NPOV does not mean that we must present a "balanced" view if that means giving the AFA's opinion of itself undue weight. If you can find some sources that really say that the AFA is not linked to homophobia, I'd love to see it, but you haven't. If you can present some reliable sources that genuinely consider the AFA leaders in first-amendment-rights litigation, feel free to let us know. As of yet, you've spent the last few weeks stalling progress on this article because you want it to be neutral in the wrong way. The article on Adolph Hitler doesn't make him sound like a "neutral" person - he was a bad person. There is no doubt about that. The fact that the AFA might seem bad because of verifiable information is not our concern. Especially when you're making arguments that amount to "I don't like this category" or "I want to claim the opposite of verifiable information because I think that information is unfair." NPOV does not mean "cannot ever be interpreted as making the subject of the article look bad." --Cheeser1 16:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Stone and Vaida (2004:3599) state at the beginning of their section on the AFA "The AFA was Founded in Tupelo, Mississippi in 1977 and has been a leading player in social-conservative fights against pornography and gay marriage" Peter H Stone, Bara Vaida. Christian Soldiers. National Journal. Washington: Dec 4, 2004. Vol. 36, Iss. 49; pg. 3596. Its a direct quote from a reliable source, and like the rest of the information there, I was open to any adjustments that were required. Deletion of the section was not what I had in mind. Hal Cross 18:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC) PS, sorry, but to keep us on track here, the sources given that show critics labeling the AFA as homophobic are also sources that show there is a clear controversy. Hal Cross 18:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to point out that the article on Adolph Hitler does state he was bad or evil, it simple states what he did and it's up to the individual to judge whether those actions make him bad or good, in the same way it's up to the individual, not the editor, to decide whether the AFA's inclusion in the homophobia catagory makes them good or bad. --Neon white 16:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to ask Hal Cross to confirm that he is not involved with, or donatates to or is linked to the AFA and therefore not in breach of WP:COI or WP:POINT --Neon white 16:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, Neon White. I have never donated anything to any charity that I know of, apart from the guys rattling collection plates in the street (Help the aged, some Buddhist environmentalists, the Poppy day rememberance and so on). I have never been to the US, I have a spiritual side but do not practice any religion, I love and get on well with homosexual members of my family, and had never heard of the AFA until I came across Wikipedia, doublechecked the article against the AFA website, and saw a one-sided and narrow article that needed enriching, and I thank you for your contribution. It might also be an idea to ask other editors what their affiliations are, concerning gay activism and so on. Hal Cross 17:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

And that brings us full circle! You've hit the nail on the head, Hal: "I doublechecked the article against the AFA website"??? Wikipedia is not here to agree with the AFA website. The AFA is verifiably associated with homophobia. The fact that the AFA disagrees is irrelevant because it is not a reliable source. You've spent your entire time on this article contributing "balance" by citing unreliable sources in an effort to provide an unnecessary and unreliably sourced defense to the AFA. This is not how we construct articles. --Cheeser1 18:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The AFA article is one indicator of the range of issues and concerns [123] of the AFA, even though the source itself may not end up in the article. The subsequently discovered reliable sources support the website's range of issues and concerns. The AFA are concerned about pornography, pedophilia, gambling, education, and they are concerned about providing an environment that they believe makes their country strong according to traditional values. Currently the article is lacking coverage of those issues and reasoning behind those issues, and it is lacking balance in terms of all relevant views. The application of the homophobia category is in part a reflection of the poor state of the article. Hal Cross 01:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again, and heavens forbid I have to repeat myself - why, oh why, are you using the AFA's own website as a benchmark for this article? Wikipedia relies on reliable sources only. Your argument may make sense to you, but it doesn't to me, and more importantly it has no basis in policy. --Cheeser1 02:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

According to policy on reliable sources, self-published websites "may be used as sources in articles about themselves" under some conditions:[124]. I was using the AFA website to determine the broad structure of the sorts of things the AFA were concerned about. We never really got around to discussing which parts of the AFA website were appropriate. Therefore, I presented sources that were reliable and not self published for the background section[125] in order to begin to show some context and breadth. It got deleted.

Concerning the application of the homophobia category; the reliable sources that show critics of the AFA labeling the AFA as homophobic (one source I know of) or anti-gay (the sources in the article), also show that it is part of a controversy, and they are in a controversy section in the article. Hal Cross 03:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to respond succinctly to each point: (1) The CN is also self published and it simply repeats what the AFA says about itself. (2) The AFA itself is verifiable associated, not by critics, but by those reliable sources reporting on such criticism, as anti-gay, homophobic, opposed to gay rights movements, etc. Unless you find a magical new policy that states "reliably sourced, verifiable criticism of your favorite group is excluded from Wikipedia," I'd say your concerns still have no basis in policy. --Cheeser1 03:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I was referring exclusively to a background section[126]. The case in the homophobia category:[127](American Family Association v. City and County of San Francisco) shows the controversy very clearly, and contains the information to refute the allegation of homophobia. The AFA embrace homosexuals and according to the common conservative Christian view, provide services for homosexuals who choose to accept God. Hal Cross 04:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC) P.s, you added the sprawling and one-sided list of boycotts to the article[128] without consensus[129].Hal Cross 05:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you consider this: The AFA embrace homosexuals and according to the common conservative Christian view, provide services for homosexuals who choose to accept God. to be the neutral truth upon which we should base this article is enough for me to conclude that this discussion is way over. If you want to discuss anything based on policy, feel free. But this is totally unproductive, and in all honesty, has very little to do with Wikipedia at this point. --Cheeser1 05:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not a fact that I consider any such thing. It is a fact that critics label the AFA as anti-gay or homophobic in a controversy according to the sources presented. It is also a fact that other sources such as the court case above, show the other side of the controversy, which goes against the homophobia accusation. Presenting a one-sided category circumvents NPOV policy because a category cannot be annotated to show the other side of the controversy. Which is why categories such as this should focus on concepts rather than listing religious groups that will inevitably be labeled by some critics as homophobic. NPOV is the main issue here. Hal Cross 07:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

And the minute the AFA's views get press-time in a reliable source, feel free to introduce them into the article (with proper contextualization). I've shown you WP:UNDUE/WP:SPS several times already. --Cheeser1 14:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Outdent. Concerning categorization in relation to the material on overcategorization: [130]. It says that "subjective inclusion criterion should not be used in naming/defining a category.". Focusing on the definition: If the definition of a category is subjective, it makes it unusable. Homophobia is a subjective label applied by critics. Even a dictionary definition will be subjective. Therefore, the concept overcategorization also supports the recommendation to not use categories for articles where name-calling is subjective. By subjectively categorizing the AFA as homophobic, it would seem that Wikipedia would be taking sides with critics in a subjective controversy.Hal Cross 07:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

"Even a dictionary definition will be subjective" - sure Hal, and by that logic, we should get rid of every category. The point is that there are reliable sources that are not "critics" or "enemies" of the AFA (read: journalists) who have given us the ability to verify that the AFA is associated with homophobia. You are mincing words to prove your point: homophobia and homophobic are two different words. "This group is associated with homophobia" and "this group is definitively homophobic" are completely different statements. The fact that we cannot qualify categories is exactly why the former is used. Your complaint is addressing the latter, which is not what's going on here. --Cheeser1 14:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll rephrase. With a dictionary definition you can still lead to the category being assigned subjectively. If a term is subjective in itself, plus part of a controversy, then its a problem. Its not such a problem if you just use it for categorizing concepts. The problem is when you try to skewer a person, religious group, or organization, with a skewed argument and pejorative category. Hal Cross 14:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes Hal, and like all words, this term is open to interpretation. Does that mean we should exclude words (except maybe "The" or "And") from the encyclopedia? No. Nobody's trying to "skewer" anybody. Stop assuming bad faith and assuming that "this article's subject is associated with homophobia" amounts to grand accusations and high slander. It doesn't. --Cheeser1 15:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Homophobia is an open and debatable value position according to Williams and Caselles. “It is also concluded that the construct of homophobia, as it is usually used, makes an illegitimately pejorative evaluation of certain open and debatable value positions, much like the former disease construct of homosexuality.” (William O'Donohue and Christine E. Caselles, "Homophobia: Conceptual, definitional, and value issues," Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment (2005)). Assignment of the AFA is subjective, and reliable sources state that the AFA rebuts the accusation, just as there are reliable sources on the Catholic and Protestant churches that rebut the accusation. Hal Cross 16:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hal, I'm afraid you need to read my posts. This category is not "homophobic people/groups" it's "groups/people associated with homophobia." The AFA is associated with homophobia. This is verifiable in reliable sources. Stop dismissing the fact that you aren't talking about what this category actually means. --Cheeser1 17:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The category is controversial, and the application of the category is controversial. I would like to remind you of the categorization recommendations[131]: "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option.". The category is not self-evident, because homophobia is a debatable and controversial term. The label is also used in a controversy that has more than one side. As such, categorizing would mean that Wikipedia is siding with the critics and condemning the AFA. The controversy makes the category inappropriate. The cat should focus on concepts, not accusations that can be applied to a range of religious groups. Hal Cross 02:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Except that it's not an accusation, Hal. --Cheeser1 03:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Homophobia is an accusation, because of the way it is generally used. "as it is usually used, makes an illegitimately pejorative evaluation of certain open and debatable value positions" (Williams and Caselles 2005). In a sentence it will generally be spat at a group or individual as a pejorative or condemnatory term. In the case of certain cultures or religiously oriented groups this is also the case. Here is where it is being used as "rabid homophobia"[132]. Its generally condemnatory and should not be used for categories when there is a controversy. Hal Cross 03:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Williams and Caselles are talking about how it's used by people who are not writing encyclopedias. Stop cherry-picking and de-contextualizing things to make it sound like they're talking about us. They aren't. This is totally irrelevant. --Cheeser1 05:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The usual use of the term homophobia makes it condemnatory and a pejorative evaluation (according to source). Whenever readers look at the state of the category, it will be likely that they will see it as Wikipedia condemning the AFA. That piece of research makes it more attractive for those wishing to condemn groups such as the AFA by making it look like Wikipedia is all for condemning those religious groups. Therefore the homophobia category is inappropriate. Hal Cross 09:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses an encyclopedic understanding of the term. What is 'uusual' is not relevant. Every term can be percieved in different ways, this is no different. It is not our job to make evaluations on how people precieve the term. I believe most people would consider terms in an encyclopedia to be factual not slang, if they do not it is their mistake not the editors. Whether those that oppose the AFA use the categorisation as fuel for criticism is not of our concern and has no bearing on this discussion. There are many other sources they could use, some of which are cited in the article. In summary, an editor should not be concerned about how others interpret the article as long as it verifiable and meets wikipedia standards. --Neon white 14:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems to fail to meet Wikipedia standardsHal Cross 16:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Please state which standard you mean. --Neon white 22:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That's your opinion. Clearly there is precedent, opinion, and even consensus to the contrary. You have made your objections, but we don't remove content or change Wikipedia when objections are raised. Until there's a consensus (or a policy) that explicitly backs your position, it's just your opinion, which disagrees with the status-quo state of things, and with an overwhelming (13-0 from the CfD, in which you apparently chose not to participate) consensus. --Cheeser1 17:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realise there was a CfD. I meant the AFA article fails Wikipedia standards. Critical views have been allowed. The broader range of non-critical views and facts have not, e.g.[133][134]. Having the category of homophobia on the article shows the same imbalance. The label of homophobia is being applied to a religious organization, when it is intrinsically part of a controversy. The other side of that controversy cannot be shown in such a category. Therefore, the category is inappropriate. Hal Cross 01:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The content dispute is a separate issue and has mostly to do with the fact that the critical views are reliably sourced. The material you've attempted to introduce has been sourced by sources ranging from totally inappropriate (the AFA itself) to questionable (academic papers from which quotations appear to be cherry-picked, decontextualized, or used to support claims they do not support). This has nothing to do with the category, the category is appropriate because the AFA is a leading figure in the gay rights movement, and often speaks/acts against what it considers a gay threat to America. This is verifiable and reliably sourced. You can say "fails Wikipedia standards" but I'm citing you the policies that apply, and they do not support your vague, unsupported conclusions. Stop pretending like you haven't seen the CfD or haven't been reading the policies that we keep pointing you to. There was ample notice for the CfD - you chose to ignore the notices and comments relating to it. Please pay attention and please abide by policy, not what you think is "Wikipedia standards." --Cheeser1 02:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This RfC is related to the categorization of this article. So far, we have multiple outside comments that agree the category is inappropriate under these circumstances. And thats without even allowing the correctly sourced information into the article. These additions [135] were open to adjustment. They are properly sourced. That background section was deleted and key views on the accuracy of AFA information on obscenity, and on the significance and notability of the AFA were deleted. Such suppression of views is consistent with the application of the homophobia category, in that it goes against NPOV on the inclusion of all relevant views. The article needs improving, and the category needs to be removed in order to make the article comply with NPOV policies. That improvement requires that the homophobia category be removed. Hal Cross 04:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Hal Cross, how many times has it been said? There is no WP:NPOV violation. Homophobia is a neutral term as used in the category. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 05:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

And to be clear, if you turn around Hal and say "yes it is, it's a controversy so we can't have it" - that will not make it so. There's no rule against including material about controversies, but about making controversial edits (which is actually what you've been doing more than anyone). There is overwhelming consensus and policy to support the notion that categorizing groups verifiably associated with homophobia is just fine. That's what categories are for. Please stop dragging out this argument as if your concerns have not been addressed (note the repeated CfDs that were overwhelmingly or unanimously for keeping the category, for use just like this). This talk page for this article (and the category too) have been flooded with endless conversations that have been unproductive, repetitive, and have meandered away from policy, towards speculation and nonsense (they've even, and at times, had the explicit intent of circumventing the consensus building process). This should really stop. Please try to familiarize yourself with WP:SPS, WP:V, and WP:UNDUE. There is no rule requiring us to give the AFA "equal time" in the article, nor is there any regulation stating that we may not include content about controversies. --Cheeser1 05:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

To keep the discussion focused on content: those multiple editors above who say the category is inappropriate, like myself, are referring to this Wikipedia recommendation that is based upon NPOV policy [136] "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option". The homophobia category is controversial in itself. There have been multiple CfD’s due to the problems that are evident with the category, and the application of the homophobia category is under discussion currently, concerning care over not applying it one-sidedly to controversy [137]. The case is the same with applying the category one-sidedly to this particular article. The reason multiple editors have commented on the homophobia category’s inappropriateness for this article is due to the problems evident with the category itself, and in the case of this article, the related religious/gay activist controversy. Hal Cross 06:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hal, stop double-talking. You refer to "multiple CfDs" all of which resulted in "keep" with overwhelming (if not unanimous) consensus. You refer to "multiple editors" who raise objections, but these concerns do not stem from policy, make use of unreliable (or cherry-picked / inaccurately quoted) sources, and have been addressed through the actual consensus-building process. You refer to "one-sided[ness]" but you apparently still haven't read WP:UNDUE (or WP:CONS either?). --Cheeser1 06:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not whether to keep the article or not. The issue is that it is evident there are problems with the category. The category talkpage itself shows some possible ways of improving the careful application of the category. You seem to use the term cherry picking too much, and I believe you are telling me to stop far too often. The reason for discussion here is to explore the issues to come to some sort of a solution and compromise. That includes the sort of solutions being explored on the homophobia category article [138]. Do you have a problem with problem solving? Hal Cross 08:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you? I've repeated myself enough. Until the category is deleted, or until consensus about its use changes, it is perfectly valid and is clearly and verifiably applicable to this article. I'm not going to repeat myself any more. --Cheeser1 08:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem at all with problem solving. Editors above have stated that the homophobia category is inappropriate for this article due problems with the category itself, and due to the POV problems inherent in the choice of sexual preference/gay activism controversy. So do you have any other methods for grouping the article with similar articles that help the reader search and understand all the issues involved? Hal Cross 09:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

due problems with the category itself, Oh really? Problems like that unanimous CfD in favor of continuing to use the category for articles exactly like this one? the POV problems inherent... Gosh. That sounds terrible. Except that this article already fully qualifies the AFA's involvement in anti-gay activism, verifiably and with reliable sources. help the reader search and understand all the issues involved? Willikers, how would a reader ever get to know the issues involved?? Maybe they would scroll to the bottom of the page and click Category:Homophobia? And then what would it say? "his category is for issues relating to homophobia, including organizations or individuals that are particularly noted for being involved in the subject of homophobia. It is not intended for groups or individuals who have made homophobic remarks and related actions but are not considered widely known for their homophobic stances." Gosh! That sounds helpful! I'm glad all of your questions can be addressed without making changes to the article. Weird how we've been telling you that from the start. --Cheeser1 09:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser1, such a barrage of sarcasm seems to be quite unconstructive. Do you have any actual suggestions to come to some sort of compromise that helps the reader? Hal Cross 09:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

(od) I think he's quite clearly shown that the gentle reader is helped already - what did you have in mind, apart from removing the link between the AFA and other articles around the homophobia debate (which doesn't strike me as overly helpful). Orpheus 11:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes I know. Its and highlighted a lot of interesting inconsistencies. I was actually asking whether Cheeser1 has any suggestions. Or do you? Hal Cross 11:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I have another suggestion: accept the consensus of the CfD and move on. There's no problem here except the one you've invented - nowhere does the existence of this category violate policy unless we make-believe that saying "this group is accused of or associated with homophobia" (when the most certainly are) is somehow an insult or an endorsement of the fearsome gay agenda. --Cheeser1 16:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Editors above seem to disagree with you Cheeser1. The problem is that the homophobia category on this article is causing problems. I have accepted the CfD, and am working constructively on solving the problems on how to categorize. It would be interesting to hear outside views on your choice to keep a narrow and accusational category, instead of a category that contains the relevant issues (LGBT issues and religion). Hal Cross 19:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Editors above? You mean yourself and one other person? The CfD was 13-0, and even if you don't feel like reading it, it still demonstrates consensus not only for not deleting the category, but continuing to use it as it's being used (which is not as an accusation, but as a category). --Cheeser1 20:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

LGBT issues and religion I have added homophobia as a subcategory to Category:LGBT issues and religion. That broadens the range of issues to take more into account for the reader. I'll add it to the article also. That would seem to take care of the reader-browsing more related articles problem. Problem solved I believe. Feel free to discuss. Hal Cross 12:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser1. This is interesting. You removed the category of LGBT issues and religion[139]. Removing the category makes it harder for the reader to browse issues relating to the LGBT and religion issue that we are discussing here. Also, that means you chose to keep the category that will always be considered to be pejorative (homophobia) by editors (as above) and sources, and you removed the one that will pretty much guarantee a solution here and a reduced amount of conflict in future. I believe your particular choice out of the two categories will lead to more disruption. Do you care to comment? Hal Cross 18:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Category policy 101: an article in category X need not be listed as in category Y, if X is a subcategory of Y. These are the basics. --Cheeser1 20:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Show me the link to the policy you are referring toHal Cross 20:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Since it's in Category:Homophobia, it's automatically also in Category:LGBT issues and religion. This isn't a policy, it's how categories work. To include it in both is redundant and unnecessary. That's like saying "2 is an integer. 2 is a rational number." The second statement is redundant. Note that 2 (number) is in the category Category:Integers, which is a subcategory of Category:Rational numbers. There is no need to put it into the larger category - it's already included there by being in the subcategory. For more guiedlines on how to properly use categories see here and here. To quote: The only time it's important is when there is a benefit to the user - there is not. Any user who goes to Category:Homophobia will immediately see the parent category Category:LGBT issues and religion (and you're the one who made it a subcategory, Hal). The category Homophobia is well-qualified and explained. It is readily apparent to the reader what the Homophobia category means, and that it is a subcategory of LGBT issues and religion. --Cheeser1 20:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

So now you are making it say: Wikipedia says the AFA are an issue in LGBT rights and religion, and Wikipedia is concluding that the AFA is homophobic. I think I see what you mean. According to the guidelines on categorization it does not say that it has to be in a subcat, it says that it shouldn't be in both. Firstly the homophobia subcat is inappropriate for the AFA as it shows only one side of the story (as editors above have stated), and secondly, the AFA court case, and many similar articles are in the LGBT rights and religion category. Your categorization is as inconsistent as all your other inconsistencies. So much for compromise! Just as a reminder, here's the general guidelines on categorization[140] guideline 7, and the key issue here is NPOV policy on neutral point of view [141]. Do you have any other possible compromises in mind that you would like to reject? Hal Cross 21:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

So we're back to just arguing whether or not it belongs in Category:Homophobia. Of course, Wikipedia is concluding that the AFA is homophobic is still wrong. IF we were saying "The AFA is homophobic" then it WOULD be nonNPOV. But we aren't. Case closed. And please stop referring you your edits as "compromises" - they aren't compromises unless they reflect more than just your opinions (which, of course, do not agree with the consensus at the CfD). The status-quo (that means: as it is now) version is far more of a compromise than you pushing your version of the article, based on a dubious interpretation of policy in order to try to absolve the AFA (still wondering why you're using the AFA's own claims as a benchmark for the article). --Cheeser1 21:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The case is very much open according to editors above who adhere to the proper Wikipedia catgorization guidelines. The problem is that you, Orpheus, and CMMK, are not open to the alternatives that give a better range of views to the reader and a better chance of NPOV being allowed. And you don't seem to be open at all to compromise. You can use lists, and a selection of other categories, and you can choose to adhere to WP guidelines on categorization by removing the homophobia category. But instead you have decided to insist on a term that according to source, is commonly considered pejorative, even in academia.

Remember also that it seems more and more necessary to add information to the article that shows the controversy. There is information that disagrees with the notion of homophobia. I'll be following this advice: [142] on dealing with information suppression. That includes making very very clear, all the views on issues that the AFA are concerned about, including pro-life, anti-pedophile issues. And of course, with all those editors here showing that there is a problem with the application of the category, there is no way I am going to just let it slide. I'll be here doing my duty to make the article balanced and that includes removing a one-sided and pejorative category. If you like the workload of involved in fighting a losing battle, then feel free to continue the way you are going. There is a tendency for guidelines to be followed by administrators in the end. Its most probably a case of how much work you are going to give yourself until the homophobia category is removed. Hal Cross 02:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Gosh Hal, I'm glad to see you've committed yourself to battling me and have decided that you are in no way willing to compromise. Unfortunately, you are the one refusing to follow consensus policy, reliable sources policy, verifiability policy. Now you apparently don't realize that Wikipedia is not a battleground. There was a dispute. Me and two others (as well as half a dozen people from the RfC) all commented that this was nonsense. There was a unanimous CfD against deleting the policy, summarily coming to the conclusion that it was neither one-sided, nor pejorative. Now, if you think differently, that's great. Wikis are free. Make your own, and you can put whatever you want there. But you've stated from the start that your editing this article was motivated by the difference you saw between the article and the AFA talk page itself. This is just not what we do at Wikipedia. We're not here to moderate, or give "equal time" or anything of the sort. The AFA does not get a soap-box or a few paragraphs to give it's "side" of the story - this is not a place for any primary source to espouse its own views. --Cheeser1 07:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The category is going to go from this article sooner or later. It may aswel go now and reduce any further disruption. The issue is that the category is inappropriate for this article. Whether the category survives its own inherant problems is another matter. The fact is, the RfC has given input into the issue, and those views show a strong inclination to say the category is inappropriate for this article. This is only natural, as the categorization guidelines are fairly clear and well motivated on this matter. You have been given other alternatives. I suggest in the interest of improving the article, you consider the alternatives to the pejorative category that is not self-evident at all, and is definitely controversial in this case. Hal Cross 11:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

No, Hal Cross, the category is not "going to go from this article sooner or later." Your arguments for removing the category are very weak and your constant talk page comments are not constructive. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 04:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedic and contextual information; WP:LEAD

I added a much needed background section to the article which shows the AFA in context, and with more issues involved [143]. WP:LEAD, states that the lead section is supposed to be a contextual overview of the whole article. So I am adding contextual detail to the article about conservative Christian groups and how the AFA relates. There is more to add concerning the general issues of LGBT rights and religion. Hal Cross 04:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

No, you re-added a background section which had already been incorporated into the rest of the article. The text you added has already been discussed here. The short version - some of it repeats what's been said earlier, some of it was good and has been moved to more appropriate sections, and some of it was wrong and/or contradicted the source quoted. Orpheus 05:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not sure why you are citing WP:LEAD - you're not editing the lead section. Orpheus 05:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:LEAD is relevant as the lead section is supposed to be a concise overview of the main body of the article. Thus, the lead needs to be reproduced in the main body to some extent, with added detail.

As for your reversion: [144], the information in the background section is necessary and includes sourced views on the AFA. Those are views on the information given by the AFA. You deleted those views, which is a violation of NPOV policy on inclusion of all relevant views. You are also stating consensus, thus you are using consensus to overcome NPOV policy. Again, it is a reversion of sourced information, without any regard for adjustment "Improve the edit, rather than reverting it."[145]

Your action is one of reducing relevant views, suppressing information[146], and is a reflection of your insistence on a one-sided and pejorative category (homophobia). Those views are sourced and should be in the article. What are your suggestions for including those relevant sourced views into the article? Hal Cross 06:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hal, WP:LEAD means that the lead must follow the body, not the opposite (which is what you've stated). Also consensus policy rules over NPOV policy. Consensus is a shared community interpretation of policies (like NPOV). The consensus is that NPOV is fine as it is - without your changes. Please don't make such frivolous accusations because you're upset that your edits are reverted. --Cheeser1 07:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I would have a lot more interest in discussing this if we hadn't already discussed exactly the same material. Do you even read the article you are editing? This revision in particular was actually good information from a decent source, so it is still in the article (in the "Published media" section). If you want my opinion on the rest of it, go back and read through the first discussion. I'm not really interested in writing it all out again because you think you're being suppressed. Orpheus 07:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I am happy to show the inconsistencies of your editing. There are many discrepancies between NPOV policy, WP recommendations, and your editing and comments. There are also discrepancies between what you say and what you do.

Here are the relevant guidelines: [147]. Disallowing reliably sourced views (that just happen to be positive) concerning the article is against NPOV policy on this matter "One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence."[148]. NPOV policy reflects consensus of many editors on Wikipedia. Therefore, you cannot use three editors on one article to overcome that consensus of hundreds or thousands of editors. Its not a question of what I think. Its a matter of allowing all relevant views into the article and presenting them fairly "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." [149]. As before, this article is not at all prone to the removal of critical views. It is extremely prone to the abuse of consensus over NPOV policy though. Not only is encyclopedic contextual information being disallowed, but positive views of the information that the AFA provides is also being suppressed. Now, would you like to suggest a way to get that contextual information back into the article so that all relevant views can be presented? Hal Cross 08:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

None of those comments have anything to do with the edits you're upset about. What exactly do you mean? Orpheus 08:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Orpheus, you have removed the sourced views[150] that say:

• 1. the AFA has been a leading player in social-conservative fights against pornography and gay marriage,
• 2. that the group that Wildmon set up has been effective networking vehicle for social conservatives
• 3 that the information the AFA offers is presented to the level of precision that parents whose values overlap only partly with those of the AFA will have ample information to make their own decisions,
• 4 that the AFA are effective in combination with other groups,
• 5 and you removed the contextual information that those conservative groups believe there is a link between pornography and sexual crimes such as pedophilia and rape. Hal Cross 11:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

1. #Stone and Vaida
2. American Family Association#Inter-group coordination and Arlington Group
3. American Family Association#Published media
4. No source provided for that - feel free to expand the Inter-group coordination section if you find one.
5. WP:FRINGE - belongs in Homosexual agenda, not here.

Orpheus 12:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Suppressing those views is exactly what it is: Information suppression [151]. Claiming something is fringe does not make it so. There is a scientific view that pornography does not increase such crimes, and there are other scientific views that those crimes can increase under some circumstances. There is a common religious view (not fringe at all) that porn, especially child porn, increases pedophilia. So you removed views on conservative Christian group's efforts to fight pedophilia. Orpheus, you have done quite a lot of removal of views on the AFA's fight against pedophilia. There is more to add on that subject. I would like to know more specific details about your objection to the presentation of such material before it gets presented on the article. Hal Cross 15:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suppressing anything, and you shouldn't claim that I am. You're right in that the view that porn affects the rate of sex crimes deserves to be on Wikipedia. You're wrong about which article, though - this is about the American Family Association and what they do, not whatever particular theories they might have on these things. Policy sets two criteria for inclusion - WP:V and WP:N. So far you haven't managed to show that what you are adding meets either. Blustering about "information suppression" is not a substitute for making sensible edits. Orpheus 15:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The author is grouping the AFA with those religiously oriented groups who have that belief. Its an encyclopedic entry. Its both notable and verifiable. You removed notable and verifiable reliably sourced views on the AFA. According to that third party reliable source, those are the beliefs of the AFA. Hal Cross 16:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

But your source doesn't say that. It links the AFA with the other groups in one context, then it talks about the things you're trying to add in a completely different context. You're synthesising, which is original research. Orpheus 17:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is your view on that particular piece of information. So what about the removal of all the other views? I was asked to supply reliable sources for views and I did. I have a lot more to offer now also. That puts you in a position where it would be sensible to compromise.

You mentioned that the input from RfC had been hidden by the arguments. Here's a recap: We have editors from the RfC saying the homophobia cat is controversial because it is in a controversy section, because the sources that criticize the AFA also show controversy, because homophobia is a value judgment, because it simply does not comply with the guidelines, because it is pejorative, because it will mean that Wikipedia is condemning the AFA in a one-sided controversy. There are long term religious controversies that also show those views. I have offered suggestions for using other categories. Would you care to explore the possibility that those categories have potential for helping the reader? Hal Cross 17:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hal, most of the input from the RfC was not in your favor. Please stop providing "situation" reports or "recaps" and trying to summarize this whole talk page as if it all magically endorses your position. It's seriously uncalled for. We asked for a third opinion. The third opinion did not agree with you. The CfD was unanimously to keep the category, in its current usage. I see only a few people on your side in the RfC: User:Jinxmchue, who left Wikipedia because (among other things) his editing was not neutral and was often reverted/refuted for being biased in favor of particular Christian interests; User:Merzbow, who inappropriately misquoted the definition of the term homophobia in order to make his only point in the discussion; and Eiler7, who claims that because the term is in some way imprecise, we can't use it (there is no such rule). In the end, your argument still reduces to: "The term is controversial. The term can be used as an insult. The term is not precisely or exactly defined. Therefore we should not use it." None of this has any bearing, unless you want to continue to cite category policy (which you're taking out of context, misinterpreting, and trying to use in a way that goes against consensus). We are allowed to document verifiable controversies. We are allowed to use terms that might be, in other contexts, insulting. We are allowed to use terms that are not precisely defined (how else could we document anything from the social sciences??). There's really nothing more to it Hal. --Cheeser1 04:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC

I submitted this article for an RFC hoping that others would have an opportunity to comment on whether or not this article belonged in the Homophobia category. I had hoped the people debating this would listen to outside opinions. Instead this has turned into the same three or four contributors arguing the same points that lead to the RFC. Disclosure-- I am gay. I believe the AFA is homophobic. However, this belief is a value judgment. I think most of the people contributing here think the AFA is homophobic. However, that is our opinion. Many would argue that they aren't because of the whole "love the sinner, hate the sin" thing. Unfortunately, that belief makes this category questionable. Instead of fighting this circular argument, can't we decide on a category that pins down their beliefs rather than a category about our characterization of them? AniMate 09:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that our opinion on the AFA isn't an appropriate basis for the category. I don't think that's the only basis suggested, though. My take on why the AFA should be in Category:Homophobia is:

1. The AFA are vocally active participants in the public debate over what degree of discrimination against homosexuals is appropriate, and what rights/privileges they should have regarding marriage, social benefits, employer recognition and so forth.
2. The AFA are also vocally active participants in the public debate over the definition of homophobia, and what actions and speech should be classed as homophobia (and/or hate speech) and what should be classed as reasonable exercise of first amendment rights.

Notice that what they actually believe doesn't really come into my reasons for including them in this category, for exactly the reason you state - it's not appropriate here.

Some good arguments in both sides came up in the RFC, but unfortunately they got totally swamped in the noise. It would be helpful if people (yes, including me) stopped endlessly repeating themselves and instead offered fresh viewpoints. Orpheus 09:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you AniMate. You put it so much better than I could have. I believe the LGBT rights and religion category is more appropriate as it handles more of the relevant issues. There could be other issues that the reader can be more directly connected to via other categories.

The LGBT rights and religion category[152] is one category that holds promise. There are groups in that category (eg Homosexuality and Christianity, Homosexuality and Baptists, and other related religions) that have the same issues as the AFA article but the diversity therein will help the reader compare each religious group in relation to LGBT rights. There are other such categories that the AFA are also compatible with in terms of making sure the issues are directly searchable. Sexuality and religion,[153], may also be appropriate as a category for the AFA as it will also contain the relevant issues. Hal Cross 09:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Homophobia is not a slur or slander. It is a verifiable (in academic sources) social phenomenon. Documenting it in Wikipedia is absolutely sensible. Just because we don't have a category "gay haters" or "racist jerkfaces" doesn't mean we can't have any category that might be misconstrued as possibly being an insult or accusation. It's not. Saying that it is doesn't change the fact that the AFA, for example, is verifiably associated with homophobia. --21:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheeser1 (talk • contribs)

I still have not read the article, and reading the comments by Hal Cross and Orpheus above, I think it is possible that both positions are defensible. The deciding question should be "Does the article discuss, or should it discuss the topic of Homophobia, the AFAs participation in the public debate about the term, and/or the AFAs opposition to the use of the term?" If the answer to these questions are "Yes", the article should be in the homophobia category, and Orpheus' position is correct. If the answer is "No", then Hal Cross is correct, and they should not be in the category just because they are homophobic. If the answer is "Yes", it might help to create a section of the article (if it doesn't already exist) that makes the AFA's participation in the debate about the term "homophobia" clear. I'd also suggest a box on the top of the talk page that says something like "This article is in Category:Homophobia because of the AFA's continued participation in the debate about the term. Membership in the category does not mean that the organization is or is not homophobic. It is in the category because someone studying the topic "homophobia" would find this article useful in understanding the debate over use of the term." --☑ SamuelWantman 22:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I've read the article. The only time homophobia is discussed is in regards to various reputable organizations accusing the AFA of being homophobic. I'd have no problem at all with the category if there was a section about the AFA's participation about the definition of homophobia. AniMate 23:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

So perhaps the way to resolve the debate on this page to everyone's satisfaction is to create a section about the AFA's role in the debate on the term "homophobia". -- ☑ SamuelWantman 00:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Suits me, and anything that results in more (sourced) additions can't be a bad thing. I'll have a bash at putting something together this afternoon. Orpheus 00:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Its not notable here. The controversy is one that is relevant to Christian and conservative Christian groups globally. Gay activists call various churches such as Catholic church, Baptists, and so on, homophobic. Those religious groups all say they accept homosexuals and do their best to help them adopt a celibate or heterosexual lifestyle. The controversy should be described more clearly collectively in the religion and homosexuality [154] or similar, article. Hal Cross 01:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it could be notable here. If the AfA has a significant and verifiable history of trying to take the word homophobia out of our lexicon or saying that homophobia doesn't exist, then this entry clearly does belong in the homophobia category. The category would no longer be applied saying that the AFA is homophobic, but instead would be there as they've played a role in the discussion about homophobia. AniMate 01:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Although to be clear, the AFA did not define or even help define the term - they are simply a notable example of groups who have a particularly strong public opposition to the term - having been (verifiably) associated with homophobia, I can imagine denying its existence is convenient. Those who define the term are those who use it properly - sociologists, for example. --Cheeser1 02:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

All Christians have a strong opposition to the term homophobia when applied to them or their beliefs. As you and Orpheus have said before "but they would, wouldn't they". Why would they? Because it is condemnatory/pejorative/value position, just as Williams and Caselles stated “It is also concluded that the construct of homophobia, as it is usually used, makes an illegitimately pejorative evaluation of certain open and debatable value positions, much like the former disease construct of homosexuality.”. There are also terms that come with that accusation, such as "bigot", and "rabid homophobia". Applying the homophobia category is just as one-sided and pejorative. Hal Cross 02:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, let's pretend that the category is "bigotry" or "rabid homophobia." Talk about a strawman argument. Seriously, Hal. This is an academic term. Almost anyone would object to any academic term about themselves because academic analysis is often harsh, not to mention it wouldn't agree with the AFA since the AFA is not a source of reliable or academic information. Their commentary on the term homophobia is irrelevant - they constitute a source that is neither academic, nor reliable. Please note that you're still de-contextualizing the Williams and Caslles quotation. In fact, you're quoting an abstract[155]. The fact is that both that paper, and even our own article on homophobia (which is completely accessible to anyone browsing this article or the category homophobia), makes very clear the fact that it is a prevailing social construction that requires academic consideration. Not everything mentioned in Wikipedia is magically endorsed by Wikipedia, Hal. Holocaust-deniers take issue with articles on the Holocaust. The KKK doesn't consider itself a racist organization. And the AFA denies having anything to do with the (verifiable and reliably sourced) social phenomenon know as homophobia. However, there are reliable secondary sources to the contrary. This is really all there is to it. --Cheeser1 03:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

(William O'Donohue and Christine E. Caselles, "Homophobia: Conceptual, definitional, and value issues," Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment (2005)). Williams and Caselles show an expert view of the term homophobia and they say it is pejorative. Its a more reliable source than the ones you are quoting. Adding the controversy to the article just makes it more obvious that the term is controversial and non-self-evident in the AFA's and all other Christian organization's case. If the homophobia category is to be applied to the AFA, then it should be applied to all Christian, Islamic, Jewish, articles that involve the same controversies. But then again, they are controversies and according to the guidelines, the category should not be there at all. There are many other ways of offering the information without having to circumvent NPOV via the abuse of categories, or the abuse of consensus. There are lists, other articles that refer to religion in general, and other categories that contain the broad range of issues involved in this world-wide controversy. Wikipedia is flexible, in order that NPOV policy can be satisfied, and in order that Wikipedia does not have sections in articles that say - Homophobia vs Choice to be heterosexual and then Wikipedia condemn the subject by siding with one set of activists/critics at the bottom of the page. Hal Cross 03:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If we are able to to show that the AFA has played an active role in the debate about how the term is applied then there is no value judgement. When I filed this RFC, you pointed out this edit about how categories are applied. Coming from this angle, Homophobia wouldn't be a value judgment as a category, but the category would be relevant as they have taken part in the public debate about the term. I can't see how you'd have any objections to this. AniMate 03:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hal has made it clear from the start that he was motivated to edit this article because it didn't reflect the content he found at the AFA's own website. This talkpage is entirely full of discussions about things like his use of unreliable sources (e.g. the AFA itself) to make analytical or sociological claims, frivolous accusations of nonNPOV because this article happens to contain content critical of the AFA without citing the AFA's response point-by-point, and hoping to remove particular terms (despite their appropriate use) to portray the AFA in the light he seems to think they should be portrayed in. --Cheeser1 03:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure AniMate. I agree with and have done my best to follow Sam's constructive tone. I also added the categorization recommendation concerning self-evident, and controversy. Taken together both of these points makes the categorization using homophobia inappropriate. I understand you are being constructive also. My brother would also say that the AFA are homophobes. In fact he would probably say the AFA deliberately spread a brand of homophobia which only appeals to the inbred redneck republican scum of society. The application of the homophobia category would be a total siding with little bro, but it would not do much for Wikipedia. The controversy itself makes the term non-self-evident due to problems with homosexuals being part of the AFA, amongst other glaring discrepancies consistent with the global controversy. Hal Cross 03:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

So are there any circumstances under which you'd consider leaving the homophobia category? AniMate 04:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course AniMate. If there is a general and non controversial consensus in Christians and other religious groups in general that those religious groups all adhere to homophobic activities and beliefs, then the category can apply to each of those groups, as long as the term has become non-pejorative in use. Otherwise, we have a range of other solutions such as lists, other non-pejorative categories such as LGBT rights and religion, and so on. I believe in comparison with other editors, I'm being very flexible and solution focused on this matter. Hal Cross 04:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, I added the homophobia category as a subcategory to the LGBT rights and religion category [156]in order for editors who want to apply categories carefully, to use the LGBT rights and religion category for articles where accusations of homophobia have been made. That takes the reader more directly to the broader range of views and issues. I believe thats a good solution for all such religious groups. Thats the beauty of categorization at Wikipedia. Its flexible so that NPOV policy can be better satisfied. Hal Cross 05:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

That's great, because the way I've been discussing applying the category isn't pejorative. We'd be discussing the AFA's views on homophobia as a term and if homophobia exists. I know you think you're being flexible, but I'm not sure. Maybe you should try editing other entries and working with other editors. You've been solely focused on the AFA and branching out into other areas might give you a better idea of how consensus is built at Wikipedia. I'm not saying you're unproductive and you have been trying to find solutions. This is just something to think about. AniMate 05:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been looking around and making edits and some comments, at science and skepticism sites for example. But I'm one of those people who naturally likes to correct crooked wall hangings, and I can get this one at least the right way around first. Its not just a matter of getting the relevant views right with categories. So far there seems to be a general resistance to all relevant views being presented in the article as a whole. The AFA do have interests other than offering choice for heterosexuality. For example, there's information on the AFA's fight against pedophilia, not in relation to homosexuality. In fact, the main concerns of the AFA are towards promoting decency (from their own religious viewpoint of course). Those views have generally been resisted or removed. I guess its just "one of those" articles. Hal Cross 05:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hal, one of the AFA's primary objectives, in "promoting decency" is to promote an anti-gay agenda. This is verifiable and reliably sourced. The fact that the AFA itself wants to spin things differently is not reliably sourced because the AFA is not a reliable source of information (especially not about itself). --Cheeser1 05:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

There are 3rd party views on this matter that take into account the whole controversy. Remember, the information you refer to is controversial, in a controversy section, in an article that is categorized as a controversial topic. Our objective here as Wikipedians should be to apply the simple formulation, to make sure all relevant views are presented. "This should be done without implying that any one of the opinions is correct".WP:ASF.

The category implies that only one side of the controversy is correct. With the category in the article, there will always be disruption to editing in the article. Many editors before me have objected to the category, and many more will object to it, to the extent that there will definitely be more disruption to editing. With those editors referring to this RfC, and all the outside editors who object to the homophobia category here, latter editors (and myself) will have all the more reason to object. If we remove the category now, we can find far more peaceful solutions, and this can be precedent for keeping disruption to a minimum in all related articles concerning religious groups. I believe I'm acting constructively and in the spirit of Wikipedia. Hal Cross 06:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds to me like you've concocted a self-fulfilling prophecy. So long as the category remains, you will be disruptive, despite consensus to keep the category? Is that what you're saying? Because when I cut that fat, that's what your comments sound like to me. --Cheeser1 06:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about history repeating, and learning from historical mistakes.

A lot of this could have been avoided in the first place simply by using a category that refers to both sides of a controversy, rather than a label that agrees with only one side. I believe this is an issue that may constructively applied to the categorization article in itself, and may be interesting to Sam in that respect. If guideline 7 states that lists may be more appropriate, then it also may be appropriate to select a category that includes both sides of a controversy instead of a one-sided categorization. I'm working with reducing conflict on Wikipedia in mind here, not just this article. Hal Cross 07:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You know Hal, you can't make an argument by first assuming that you're correct. Nobody but you seems to think that the label "homophobia" is one-sided on its face. Homophobia is a social phenomenon that is verifiable and reliably sourced. Groups from all sides can be connected to it. You can cite policy all you want, but the shoe doesn't fit. --Cheeser1 07:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually there seems to be 6 editors currently, including myself, who consider that the homophobia category amounts to a value judgment or words to that effect [157][158][159][160][161][162][163][164][165]and at least 5 who consider the homophobia cat to be inappropriate for this article. You yourself said that of course the AFA would deny the label, which also means that you acknowledge to some extent the existence of the category as a pejorative value judgment. Hal Cross 08:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth. The AFA denies the label because the AFA doesn't want to be called homophobic. Gee, and how relevant is that? It isn't, Hal. The AFA isn't a source of information here. What they say is irrelevant. You're also still mincing words: the category is not "homophobic". It's "homophobia." To categorize the AFA as "related to homophobia" passes no judgment (even if categorizing them as "homophobic" would). Please start addressing the issue at hand, instead of concocting side-arguments like this that are irrelevant. --Cheeser1 08:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Its relevant to every religious group that believes that heterosexuality is a choice. None of them want to be called homophobic because its pejorative to be labeled something that is motivated by hate. The category doesn't apply to them at all because because of the controversy - they say they are motivated by love, not hate. They are not discriminating against, they are providing choice for the minority (according to those religious groups). This is a major global controversial issue that is reported by third party sources. The issue should be explained more clearly on and among other articles on religion and homosexuality, and it can be referred to here. The homophobia category can be placed as a subcategory of one of those more balanced categories, and the articles in question can be applied to the categories that contain the whole controversy (categories that include the homophobia subcat, belief in choice and so on). That way disputes such as this may be averted or prevented on other similar religious group/advocacy charity articles. Hal Cross 08:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No, Hal. Those groups are not reliable soruces. "This group is associated (verifiably) with homophobia" and "this group is hateful" are two very different things. The fact that the AFA denies being homophobic is great. If it ever pops into a reliable third-party source, maybe we can add it to the article. Now, please please please stop over-exaggerating the issue. What you've just said is a gross misrepresentation of what's at issue here. --Cheeser1 09:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hal, please note that another editor, one that came in at your request to evaluate this issue, has also asked that you familiarize yourself with policy, possibly by stopping editing this article for a time (and unlike your last "break," for longer than half a day either, and that includes leaving the discussion on the talk page too). Get some experience elsewhere. You've been a Wikipedian for about three months. You've made 172 edits to the mainspace: 170 in this article, and 2 at Intelligent design. You've made 428 talkpage edits, 422 to this page and 6 at ID. You've made 33 edits to category talk pages, 31 of which were to Category:Homophobia, and the other two were in the category you made Homophobia a subcategory of. You've made no contributions to any part of Wikipedia except this article (more or less). You've been repeatedly asked to familiarize yourself with policy, to use reliable sources, and to stop using the AFA's website as your point-of-reference for how you think this article should look. Please take the time to do more than contribute 33 edits a day to a single article (334 this month, in only 11 days). --Cheeser1 09:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, its at least 7 editors [166][167][168][169][170][171][172][173][174][175]and in response to the sum of their comments I am encouraged to edit and make my comments here. As a compromise, I will also follow AniMate's recommendation concerning other articles, and I will keep a closer eye on other controversial and religiously oriented articles in order to solve problems more effectively here. Hal Cross 09:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Whatever Hal. We've all asked you to familiarize yourself with policy, to take breaks, to be more than a single-purpose account. Branching out into a few related articles isn't going to change the fact that your only contribution to Wikipedia continues to be an ongoing conflict against the consensus that's been established, coming from an initial desire to incorporate content from the AFA website into this article (and apparently an inability to tolerate or comprehend the term "homophobia"). I suggest you try working on some different articles or take a break altogether. I'm going to. This discussion is pointless, and I've honestly given up on getting you to acknowledge WP:RS or WP:V - I can't even get you to tell the difference between "group associated with homophobia" and "hate group." This reflects a serious problem with your willingness to participate in a good-faith discussion. So I'd rather not waste any more time or server space repeating myself to you. If you make a salient point, I might address it, but this conversation has been going nowhere since it started, and despite efforts to the contrary (from the WQA, RfC, AN/I, and CfD), we're still going through the same song and dance number. --Cheeser1 09:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestion.[176][177][178][179][180]. I feel pretty refreshed after that.

I would feel the discussion is going nowhere if I found at least 6 editors disagreeing with my long term view. So you understand why I feel so encouraged. I have a lot more verifiable and reliably sourced information to add to the article. I haven’t been adding much of it because I would like editors to explore the compromise solutions that are on the table, and editors tend to remove reliably sourced views during this dispute. Feel free to explore those and other possibilities when you come back from your break. Hal Cross 11:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hal, you can't make six edits in the span of a few hours (on talk pages no less) and expect us to believe that you've taken a break or gotten to know Wikipedia better. Your comments now also reflect a clear (mis)understanding that somehow your additions have been unjustly removed from the article. You do not own your contributions, and their removal is completely allowed (and in this case, warranted). I have no idea where this "six editors" threshold came from, but the CfD found thirteen who voted to keep the category. Once again, I would ask that you take a break from this topic and related topics. You've edited virtually nothing but this article since you got here three months ago, and you've been the source of a great deal of conflict - much of which has been completely absurd: asking us to repeat verbatim the AFA website, proposing categories for deletion and refusing to actually CfD them, objecting to sociological terms because they happen to offend you. You have repeatedly stated your intentions that you started editing this article because when you saw it, it didn't agree with the AFA's website. You've now made it clear that you don't intend to leave until your "long term view[s]" are imposed on the article. This is seriously unconstructive, but I'm not going to debate that with you. I'm just going to fix any edits you make to this article that don't comply with policy or that consensus disagrees with. --Cheeser1 01:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats fine by me. Here's the situation. You, Orpheus, and CMMK want the homophobia category. I (and other editors) believe it breaches guidelines. You keep criticizing me as an editor. I keep providing what you ask for. There is a conflict. There are 3 editors who don't want me here. They all make mistakes and you don't criticize them at all. I'm the only regular editor here who is working to make sure that the variety of views are presented alongside any negative view. Does that seem balanced to you?

Here is one of your, and Orpheus' inconsistencies. You argued for having the Katrina information added to the controversy section. You said it is obviously controversial [181]even though the source doesn't say its controversial or show the other side of the story. Yet you deny that the homophobia term is controversial, even when the sources presented show that there is a controversy. I believe you are not being even handed at all. You are arguing so desperately for what you want that it makes you inconsistent. I believe your editing is poorly motivated. There critical edits in the article that have far less reliability than the ones I have already presented, and that have been illegitimately removed. If editors want to continue to illegitimately remove my edits, it goes on their edit history, not mine. Hal Cross 03:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Hal, do not present your idea of what's going on as "the situation." You can't even tell the difference between real life controversy, as depicted in the article, and controversial or nonNPOV editing. The term "homophobia" for example is the center of controversy in real life, but according to consensus at the category page itself, use of the category is just fine. --Cheeser1 03:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You keep telling me not to state my case. I believe you are not following Wikiquette. The homophobia category goes against categorization guidelines that are built on consensus and motivated by NPOV policy. Insisting on the category is effectively about the same as insisting on conflict and long term dispute from any editor who edits the article. Already as above, there are at least 6 editors who disagree with the categorization, and others here who do not want the category anywhere on Wikipedia.

In any situation, the category on this article will be in breach of guidelines. So if reducing conflict is the goal, we only have the options of removing the homophobia category from this article and using 1. lists, 2. other categories that describe both sides of the controversy, or 3. describing the controversy on articles about religion and LGBT and linking here. That is actually a broad range of options. Which of those options are you at least hypothetically most in favor of? Hal Cross 04:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Hal, you just don't get it. You don't decide what happens on this article. You can't say "Policy is built by consensus, and I now wield policy and choose to remove this category." Consensus also interprets policy, and consensus has been overwhelming to keep the category (generally, and here). Don't make demands or ultimatums. You've done it twice in your two most recent posts, and both I and CMMK have asked you to stop demanding that the category be removed, as if you decide how policy is interpreted and acted upon. I would like to once again strongly urge you to stop being a single-purpose account and edit elsewhere (including taking a break from watching, editing, or commenting on this article and related topics). You consistently butt heads with consensus, edit with a clear misunderstanding of what content is encyclopedic (not the AFA's opinions of itself, for example), use unreliable sources or misquote reliable ones, and make demands of others, going so far as to say "this category will eventually be removed." I would really like you to continue to contribute, but you're making nearly 40 edits per day on this article alone, and virtually none elsewhere. --Cheeser1 04:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The situation is changing there, and I'm enjoying it. Now, you are repeating yourself. I believe I am being constructive here. Would you like to answer my question[182]? Hal Cross 04:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Hal, I'm not going to respond to your ultimatum. You cannot demand that the category be removed and offer other people the alternatives you've chosen to allow. You do not run Wikipedia. The category was unanimously kept in its CfD (the third time in as many months). The CfD confirmed that consensus supports this usage. You can continue to spin miles about how it's unfair or violates policy, but consensus thinks it's fine with policy, and you can continue to inflate this single article with your daily contribution of 35+ edits, or you could move on. I'm not going to respond to your demands or ultimata in any way shape or form. --Cheeser1 04:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Its a simple question. Its not an ultimatum. Accusing me of trying to own the article is quite unconstructive. I believe I am following Wikiquette in this matter. Ok, if you are into objections, which of those three options presented above do you most object to, and why? Hal Cross 07:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to make a few suggestions:

• That the people concerned about this issue not engage in lengthy discussions on this page. It would be better to move long discussions to your own talk pages.
• Try to limit your contribution to this debate to one comment per day or less.
• Rather than find fault with suggestions, make counter proposals that move towards a middle ground.
• Refrain from personalizing the discussion. Discuss the article and ways to improve it, rather than each others positions.

I'd like to get the conversation back into what looked like it might be a middle ground -- improving the article's discussion of the AFA's position and role in the debate on the term homophobia. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 09:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I quite agree, though I'm a still a little confused as to why it is controversial that an organisation that

• boycotts companies for treating its LGBT employees the same as heterosexual ones;
• routinely inserts scare quotes round the words "gay" or "marriage" (in referring to gay marriage) on its website [183];
• issues press releases like [184], claiming that sexual orientation shouldn't be added to hate crime legislation, and
• opposes any anti-discrimination legislation aimed at sexual equality [185]

shouldn't have a "Homphobia" category added to it? Can someone explain why it is even an issue? ELIMINATORJR 09:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestions Sam. I'll respond to Eliminator tomorrow. Welcome in advance, Eliminator. Hal Cross 10:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Sam, I’m not sure limiting to one comment a day is possible for Hal Cross. In the past months he has filled up the talk page despite users telling him to stop commenting so often, especially when his comments are repetitive, unconstructive, or ignoring policies/guidelines. Also, Hal Cross makes it impossible to "make counter proposals that move towards a middle ground" due to his insistence that "the category is going to go from this article sooner or later," so the only counter proposal that can be made which would please Hal Cross would be to remove the category entirely; this is not how consensus works. I know I should assume good faith, but I don’t see Hal Cross doing anything but disrupting Wikipedia. I have found after months of dealing with Hal Cross on this article that there is no way a single user account can innocently misinterpret so many things, constantly argue about trivial and obvious things, and repeatedly add text to the article in violation of WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR, without having an agenda to own the article and solely go against concensus to disrupt Wikipedia. I think the only solution to this problem is to ignore Hal Cross and his constant comments until he makes the choice to start editing in a more constructive manner. Sorry for the long post. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 10:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I would add that Hal refuses to take breaks when editing becomes disruptive, and makes only token edits elsewhere when his intentions or single-mindedness are questioned. He came to this page with the stated intention of making this article look more like the AFA's website, and his editing reflects that kind of undue bias. --Cheeser1 20:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to repeat something Sam said above:

• Refrain from personalizing the discussion. Discuss the article and ways to improve it, rather than each others positions.

I'd like to add:

• Refrain from discussing each other.

If you want to discuss Hal you can file a Wikiquette alert or a user conduct RFC. Otherwise lets just stick to talking about the article and/or category.

Now, something I thought we'd all agreed on was finding references to the AFA and their position on homophobia. That way there would be no argument about the category. Another solution to this would be discussing how their positions have lead them to be called homophobic. My problem with the category is that we don't just get to label them homophobic, even if we believe they are. And I do. AniMate 22:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem with orgs. such as these as that they deny homophobia because it's bad PR yet they have policies that are discriminatory against gay people, which is the defintion of homophobia. http://www.news.com/2100-1001-211877.html decent source. --Neon white 00:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hal has had several alerts (AN, AN/I, WQA) against him. That's how I was originally brought to this page. Unfortunately, "refrain from discussing each other" only goes so far as a person's "position" relates to his/her editing. Sometimes you just have to say what's going on here. We're supposed to discuss the article, and our contributions to the article. His are problematic, poorly sourced, nonNPOV, taken straight from afa.net, etc. This is relevant to the discussion about the article and/or category. --Cheeser1 00:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary to discuss "how their positions have lead them to be called homophobic." It's self-evident the AFA are involved in homophobia if one reads the article and sees how they fear homosexuals' actions and advocate discrimination against homosexuals. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 00:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. It's not our job to justify conclusions that are already readily found in reliable sources. --Cheeser1 00:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

In reply to EliminatorJR. Hi again. Homophobia is a term that is used very regularly by critics of certain conservative or religious organizations, including national defense, major religions, governments, and so on. And its often pointed at more than one group at the same time. For example[186] in the case of sexually explicit art or what they consider pornography, Cincinatti, the AFA, New York city / Guilliani, and Cobb County Commission, have been accused of homophobia. One possible compromise would be to attach the homophobia category to each of those articles and all other organizations that have ever been called homophobic.

There are just too many governments, organizations and religious groups being labeled by critics as homophobic to consider AFA some sort of exception. e.g. [187][188].

Here is a piece of information I just discovered that to my knowledge, nobody yet has presented: The homophobia category (if it survives) should not be applied to organizations at all. There was consensus that the category of “Homophobic organizations” should be deleted [189]. According to the result: “The result of the debate was Delete. Compelling OR/POV concerns have not been satisfactorily addressed by 'Keep' arguments. Furthermore, we do not categorise by opinion”. The category is not for people who want Wikipedia to label organizations such as the Catholic church, US army, or the AFA as homophobic. It’s for concepts pertaining to homophobia (as long as those concepts are self-evident and not part of a controversy, which many of them probably are, so the category itself may not survive anyway). Hal Cross 03:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesnt matter, what groups are listed in he category and what groups are not, this discussion is not about what should be on the list neither is it about other article which are irrelevant to this discussion. Please keep to the discussion. This isn't the first time you have attempted to change and confuse a simple debate --Neon white 16:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

BREAKING NEWS: To say "X is homophobic" and "X is associated with homophobia" are VERY different. Consensus may be that one is not allowed, but consensus has three times in three months supported keeping the homophobia category in exactly this kind of use. Stop mincing words, you've been asked not to do this before. Please heed consensus, instead of dredging up irrelevant (albeit similar) examples. --Cheeser1 03:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You are conflating "homophobic" and "homophobia". The category "Homophobia" does not say 'the subject of this article is homophobic' - it says it is associated with the term, which the AFA undoubtedly is, as referenced by reliable sources in the article. ELIMINATORJR 13:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point. I believe we have enough sources linking the group to anti-gay actions. I can't see any valid objections that arent based on a POV. --Neon white 16:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser1, I’d refrain from shouting in caps.

Yes, the deleted category is “Homophobic organizations”, and the present one is “Homophobia”, or as you said, anything associated with homophobia. Arguments against the homophobic organizations category include:” subjective and contentious category that can only stir up trouble. Have they defined homophobia? It doesn't quite mean what a lot of people think it does.”, “Inherently POV. The definition of homophobia used by the gay lobby is extreme and intolerant.”.

Organizations that have been called homophobic are numerous and include Catholic, Baptist, Islamic, government organizations and so on. Organizations that have been associated with homophobia are much more numerous(e.g. just for starters [190][191][192]). The sort of organizations that can be added according to your criteria will make the category as meaningless as the term itself has become. And your criteria for inclusion will create endless conflict on those articles.

Religious organizations that have been associated with homophobia can be added to categories that contain the broad global controversy, rather than the homophobia category that basically just describes the accusation. That way the reader will get direct access to the relevant issues, and Wikipedia will not end up looking so laughably biased and condemnatory.Hal Cross 02:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This is at least the third time you've brought up the same same irrelevant point. For the final time, the discussion is about the AFA, not about any other organisation or what they may or may not be categorised as. They are all completely seperate decisions. That is wikipdia policy. This is not a 'gay lobby' site, it's an encyclopedia, it uses verifiable facts, it is not wikipedia's concern to make judgements on random people's subjective comprehensions of a particular term. --Neon white 16:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hal, you're not listening to what people are saying. Until you do, I'm not sure people are really going to respond to these strange strawman arguments. --Cheeser1 03:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The dictionary definition of homophobia is "fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals". Whilst the first is somewhat subjective in relation to the AFA, the other two definitions clearly and verifiably apply - and the category will not become meaningless as long as this verifiability is consistent. If you feel other organizations belong in this category, and their association is verified and sourced, feel free to add them. Looking at the category at the moment, there are only three other religious organizations there, and their inclusion is not controversial either. ELIMINATORJR 13:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There are at least 6 editors above who have commented that the category is inappropriate[193][194][195][196][197][198][199][200][201][202], as in the case of organizations, the category is condemnatory and a pejorative value judgment. (“It is also concluded that the construct of homophobia, as it is usually used, makes an illegitimately pejorative evaluation of certain open and debatable value positions, much like the former disease construct of homosexuality.” (William O'Donohue and Christine E. Caselles, "Homophobia: Conceptual, definitional, and value issues," Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment (2005)). "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option."[203]

most of those are making the same irrelevant points of you, this isnt a subjective term when used in an encyclopedia, it has a dictionary definition and the simple fact is that the AFA fit it regardless of whether the term can be used as an accusation the point is that in this case it is not. --Neon white 17:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The more sensible options for this and all other religious groups who have been accused of homophobia (Catholic church, Islam etc) involve using a list, or using a non-pejorative category that includes all sides of the controversy. Editors such Sam and AniMate have asked that we consider the alternatives. Here are some options that will be more likely to satisfy WP categorization guidelines. We can use; 1. lists, 2. other categories that describe both sides of the controversy, or 3. describing the controversy on articles about religion and LGBT and linking here. So which of these options do people at least hypothetically consider the more satisfactory, and why? Hal Cross 03:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This isnt remotely constroversial, it either goes on the list or it doesnt, those are the two options and seen as you have come up with no valid reason why it shouldnt and cannot deny they are homophobic then i dont see why you are still argueing it. --Neon white 17:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Option 4: Hal stops taking quotes from sources and from other editors out of context to try to support his agenda to remove a category whose existence and use is supported by a broad consensus. --Cheeser1 04:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

None of them. There seems little point in continuing this argument; I have given the dictionary definition above, such behaviour is referenced in the article; and that is how the word is used in 99% of cases. Your example - as well a being POV - is irrelevant, as there is nothing "pejorative" in using the term in relation to an organisation which is quite obviously anti-LGBT and anti-LGBT lifestyle. Also, the category is not in itself pejorative - it is used for the article on European Fundamental Rights Agency - it is obviously not saying that organisation is homophobic. ELIMINATORJR 06:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm in a position I really, really don't want to be in. I have to take the side of someone who clearly sympathizes with the AFA. Ugh. I don't think the category is appropriate. It is there to describe the AFA as homophobic... which they arguably are. However, I keep coming back to this edit by neutral admin Sam. This article says very little about homophobia, but instead is categorized because some of us think the organization is homophobic. The only place in the entry the word appears (besides the category) is as a topic header.

The homophobia category isn't valid because it is a value judgement... and it is a value judgement as much as we want to argue that it isn't. Many, many people involved in the AFA or sympathetic to them would argue that they aren't homophobic but are protecting traditional family values, etc. We've all heard it before. Is it true? In my mind, it is not. In someone else's mind, it is. So we're stuck with pages and pages of debate over what amounts to a bad category for the state this article is currently in. If the category is going to be included, I think we have to find a basis for showing the AFA's role in the general debate over homophobia. Again, we are currently saying the AFA is definitely homophobic, and unfortunately that is controversial. We can say the claim isn't, but I think many people with similar POVs to the AFA would argue otherwise. Is it fair to take biased people's opinion under consideration in this context? Yes, if our biases are playing into our decisions. Right now, this category is a bad fit and unfortunately POV. Add some sections about the AFA and their stance on homophobia or their role in the debate on homophobia and I can't imagine any substantive objections. AniMate 22:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Sam is a "neutral admin" maybe, but he isn't in charge and his opinions aren't binding. I'd especially like to point out that he says "pages and pages of good faith debate" - I think most of this is repetitive, for reasons that are obvious. There is a strong consensus that a category like "homophobia" is far different than one of "homophobe" or "homophobic groups." The standards for material in Wikipedia is WP:V, and that includes categories. Category:Homophobia and the consensus surrounding that article all make it very clear how/when/why this category applies. --Cheeser1 22:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I know that Sam isn't in charge, but I still think its a good opinion and something we should consider. I certainly don't think that the category should be deleted or anything, and I also hope you're not implying that my part of this debate isn't in good faith. I have reservations. And while I think Category:Homophobia is a good category, I feel like here it's being used as a proxy for Category:Homophobe or Category:Homophobic Groups. AniMate 22:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm a "neutral admin" too - I've never edited this article, or hardly any LGBT-related one - but I must repeat that I think this category is relevant. Perhaps a category like "Anti-gay activism" might be appropriate; but in the end, aren't they really the same thing? Can an organisation that, for example, maintains public lists of addresses where it urges people to protest against legislation which adds "sexual orientation" to the lists of hate crimes, really not be linked to homophobia? I'd say it is unlikely. And as an aside, the viewpoint that the AFA "aren't homophobic but are protecting traditional family values"; well, would we remove the "Racism" category from the Ku Klux Klan if one of their members asserted that they "aren't racist, they're protecting white values"? No, we wouldn't. ELIMINATORJR 23:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree for the most part, but most racist organizations aren't listed in Category:Racism. They're listed in Category:White supremacist groups in the United States or Category:Politics and race. I'm having a tough time on this one, and I wasn't trying to give Sam any special status, other than the fact that he has been heavily involved in working on policy in regards to categories. Personally, I'm not sure if even I agree with my position on this. Part of me thinks it would be easier to disengage, and let this play out without saying anything... but I don't think I can. "Anti-gay activism" and "Homophobia" are not the same thing. We don't categorize the ex-gay ministries as homophobic, though they clearly are. We don't characterize politicians and bloggers who have campaigned and platformed against gay rights as homophobic, even though they are. I have a feeling someone is going to call this a straw man argument, but I don't think that is fair either. We have all of this debate, which could go away with the proper category. I don't know. I feel like I'm rambling and am a little frustrated here... partly because the people on this page have absolutely dug their heels in on both sides of this, and partly because I'm arguing a position I'm really not comfortable in. I think the biggest problem right now is that no one is willing to compromise at all. No one has given an inch since the RFC was filed. For the most part everyone who didn't agree with some was ignored. The people who agree wit Hal were called irrelevant, and frankly I'm not sure Hal even reads the people who disagree with him before replying with the same points. As far as I've seen, I'm the only person who has compromised, and I'm flip-flopping all over the place on this one. So I hardly deserve praise there. I've stated that if we had a section in the article specifically about how the AFA has been involved in the debate about homophobia as a term or its existence, that I would drop my objections without reservation because we would be discussing homophobia rather than saying the AFA is homophobic. I think Hal agreed with this, though if I'm not mistaken he tried to retract that agreement when it briefly looked like that was going to happen. Are there any circumstances in which those fighting for the category would be okay with it being removed? AniMate 23:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the way to solve this is to do what you suggested and put a section in about how the AFA attempts to influence the use of the word homophobia. I've had zero time to do this lately, but I had a quick look last week and found a half-dozen articles (and a couple of peer reviewed journal articles) with some google searching. As I say, haven't had time to write anything about them yet, unfortunately. The section should also include a discussion about the term political correctness as well. One thing I've noticed is that the AFA and other groups like them are very keen to define labels in general. Obviously this isn't restricted to one side of politics, but they seem to have recognised it's an effective rhetorical tactic. Take word A, defined in relatively neutral terms and applied to yourself, redefine it to be nastier, then claim it's unfair to be labelled that way. Sound familiar? Here's the first link I found: [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48601], hopefully I'll get some time to dig up some more and write something. Orpheus 00:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Careful though. We can't synthesize claims about what these groups do, based on what we look up and find them asserting. That source you give, for example, is not reliable (it's self published, for starters, and is obviously biased and without true journalistic merit). Unless a secondary source gives weight to this interesting "opinion" that advocating for gay rights is really oppressing Christians and/or destroying the first amendment, then we can document it, but only insofar as that secondary source does so - I presume a reliable secondary source would not accept such claims at face value. --Cheeser1 01:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

AniMate, category 'anti-gay activism' to replace 'Homophobia' is a bad idea because the AFA fears homosexuals and advocates discriminating against them, which fits the definition of homophobia perfect and 'anti-gay activism' says nothing about fear or about non-gay activism discrimination against homosexuals. Also, I dissagree with "article says very little about homophobia," as the article makes a lot of references to many things dealing with homophobia. I also disagree with "Add[ing] some sections about the AFA and their stance on homophobia or their role in the debate on homophobia" because the AFA's stance on their fear of and discrimination of homosexuals and the AFA’s role in the debate is very clear from reading this article and more information (multiple sections?) is completely unnecessary. If the AFA claims they are not homophobic, then that can be stated in a neutral way, but anything else seems unnecessary. At least IMO.—Christopher Mann McKay^talk 00:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Even if it does turn out to be unnecessary, if it a) expands the article and b) establishes a broader consensus, then it's still worth doing. Orpheus 00:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I think though that we do not need to document the AFA's attempts to mince words or dodge issues by denying their homophobia on the basis of "we don't fear gays, we fix them." That's not encyclopedic, gives undue weight to the AFA's opinion of itself, which is not (even in this article) inherently worth mentioning (and definitely unreliable). If a third party source talks more than trivially about how the AFA attempts to dodge the accusation by nitpicking the definition of Homophobia (à la Hal ,above), then maybe. --Cheeser1 01:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, not quite what I was referring to. Take a step outwards. You're correct that the opinion you mention is not encyclopedic, but the fact that the AFA are trying to use it to change (or reframe, if you prefer) the debate over gay rights is encyclopedic. It's like the boycott issue that's come up before. The text about why the AFA says they boycott things is not a good addition. The text about the fact that they do boycott is. I'm not suggesting we give undue weight to the why - just the what. Orpheus 03:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I'd definitely avoid citing the AFA itself. I'm not sure we have secondary sources talking about the AFA's attempts to "change" the debate - these attempts seem to generally be ignored or immediately discredited as far as I've ever seen in a reliable source. --Cheeser1 04:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe the most cooperative thing to do here would be to follow WP guidelines properly. I’m not sympathetic to the AFA at all. I have also added contextual edits that are not particularly sympathetic, on intelligent design, for example. I personally consider ID to be stupid. I am just trying to sort this article out. It’s currently in the process of becoming an attack article. There are positive views about the AFA, mainly from anti-pornography and anti-pedophilia activists. Judging by most editors’ reaction to my edits, those views will be resisted.

I am open to suggestions from you all, and have changed my mind on a lot of issues. For example, I now believe organizations “can” be part of the category if it survives. The European Fundamental Rights Agency [204] is not being labeled in a pejorative way, and there will most likely not be a controversy over the label, so it can remain. However, all religious groups, and others who have had the label applied to them pejoratively will no doubt controvert the accusation. It’s a simple matter of following WP guidelines on categorization. Many editors here have given that really obvious NPOV oriented solution, and I agree with them. And in line with that agreement, I believe Anti-gay activism is a viable alternative as a category.

There is nothing unique about the AFA’s definition or stance on homophobia. The references in the homophobia section are stated as referring to the AFA, but in fact they mostly refer to a broad range of organizations who oppose gay marriage and so on. That group of organizations extends to US states, and jurisdictions who have decided that homosexual marriage should not become legal, which in turn extends to all other legal systems globally who consider such things to remain not legal. It is ridiculous to label all opponents of gay marriage, for example, as homophobic, or being associated with homophobia. The list would include most of the United States and most religions. The AFA are just one out of many charitable advocates for such views. The controversy needs to be categorized using balanced or neutral terms, and it will most definitely be better presented on other articles such as conservative Christian, or religion and LGBT. Simply follow WP categorization recommendations properly, and refrain from using controversial and conflict-provoking categories. The issue is one of controversy between 1.gay rights activists and supporters – and, 2. the rest of the world who engage in that controversy. Hal Cross 04:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Hal Cross 06:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Being against gay marriage is prejudice therefore they could all come under the definition. --Neon white 13:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hal, that doesn't make sense. If an organization that supports gay rights is allowed to be associated with homophobia, why isn't one that opposes gay rights? And yet, you still insist that "homophobia" and "homophobic" are the same category, even now. And once again, I'll point to a few things you've just said: "follow WP guidelines properly" "I am just trying to sort this article out" "becoming an attack article" etc. If you want to accuse us of writing an attack article, you'd better do more than casually mention it in passing. You are not here to sort this article out. It's not your article. When a substantial consensus has been established in this matter, and you continue to ignore it, you can't honestly expect to just make allusions to "WP guidelines," when you're ignoring the most important one. --Cheeser1 05:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I would be helpful at this stage, if poeple could summarise a little more, it's starting to look like an essay contest with some editors writing several a day. --Neon white 13:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC II

To some up my points All terms can have different meaning to different people, some words have multiple meaning, we cannot sanction for how various people read a term, that would simply be imposible, it would be akin to pointing out ever time the word 'jesus' was used to it wasnt meant in a blasphemous way. Can we not have an article titled jesus casue some might see it as blasphemy? We know thatr homophobia can be used in a derogatory fashion, however having it as a category title that does not imply any negativity at all. No dictionary gives the primary meaning of homophobia as an insult most dont even mention it. Wikipedia should be based on reliable sources like dictionary definitions not on an informal use of a term. --Neon white 13:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

This opinion was also established, by consensus, at the CfD for Category:Homophobia. Ignoring consensus is disruptive. I would ask that editors abide by consensus-backed decisions - the consensus-building process is there for a reason, it's how we do things. --Cheeser1 16:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that consensus has changed... at least for this article. More than one editor has expressed valid concerns about this category, and there seems to be very little acknowledgment of that. Even efforts to expand the article to make the category less controversial have been rebuffed. I know that this conflict has been going on for some time, but it's time to come out of the trenches and move forward. AniMate 17:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, there have been very few valid concerns that were backed up by anything other than personal opinion. --Neon white 19:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

There is consensus to keep the category as it stands. The CfD was not "Keep, but remove religious organizations" it was a simple "Keep." There was no consensus to remove religious organizations from the category. The arguments presented on this talk page are mainly dealing with how it is a bad idea to have religious organizations, such as the AFA, included in the category. It’s obvious and verifiable that the AFA belongs in the category and IMO, the arguments presented to remove the category are not near sufficient to ignore consensus to keep the category as it remains. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 17:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you missed the fact that all of these concerns were expressed at Category talk:Homophobia before and during the CfD. And yet the CfD was still unanimous. --Cheeser1 02:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

And as you well know, I have not been advocating removing the category. I have been advocating expanding the article in a way that makes the controversy negligible. Hal's not going away. He hasn't done anything, in my opinion, that's going to get him banned from Wikipedia or even a topic ban. So we've got to work on a compromise. If not with him, then perhaps with me, as I am clearly a good faith editor trying to make good faith changes. AniMate 19:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you be more specific as to what "expanding the article in a way that makes the controversy negligible" includes? Thank you. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 21:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Orpheus put it best here. I honestly can't see how there could be any objections. AniMate 22:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

That would ideally belong on the homophobia page. I'm still not entirely sure why you consider this categorisation to be controversial seen as the consensus appears to be that the AFA are homophobic. --Neon white 00:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

And moreso, that they are homophobic according to reliable sources. If it's verifiable, and we present it in a way that is neutral, is it our fault that Hal and others are jumping to incorrect conclusions and assuming that it's an accusation (when it is not)? --Cheeser1 02:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's another compromise. The issue is basically gay rights vs Christian beliefs. So remove the AFA and the AFA case from the homophobia category, and put the conservative Christian article there instead. That way you'd be dealing with the main issue instead of condemning one particular group out of many. Hal Cross 02:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect; you're painting with much too broad a brush since Christian beliefs are hardly unified in opposition to gay rights. See Homosexuality and Christianity for a full discussion. The basic issue is whether the AFA is associated with Homophobia. AUTiger » talk 02:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

That's compromise for the sake of it, it doesn't actually satisfy anyone's arguments. If anything, we should be looking at all the other groups and conservative Christian to see if they're verifiably associated with homophobia (and adding them if they are). I suspect not many would be as involved in the issue as the AFA is - they really are right at the top of the pile in terms of how much time, effort and money they spend on the issue. Orpheus 02:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats a good point AUTiger. And it will also be controversial that even some specific elements of Christianity are associated with homophobia. Critics will accuse them of homophobia, and they will respond that its love and scripture. I believe that all subjects who state they are doing what they do out of love and scripture, will be inappropriate for the homophobia cat. Its a general controversy that belongs in another category, for example, LGBT rights and Christianity/religion. Its a simple enough solution that will solve a great many problems at the same time, and will give the reader a direct access to the issues involved. Hal Cross 06:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Motivations are irrelevan, if it fits the defintion then it fits the defintion. --Neon white 18:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I completely disagree with Hal on this. This is in no way a Christian beliefs vs. gay rights issue. I may not be Christian, but my family is... and they would be horrified if they were put anywhere near the AFA and their beliefs, as would many if not most Christians. The Episcopal Church elected a lesbian bishop, so classifying this as gay rights vs. Christian beliefs is beyond POV. The issue is how homophobia is being applied to this particular organization. What is the line we draw when it comes to categorizing someone or a group as homophobic or being involved in homophobia? Where do we draw it? Are all politicians, groups, and organizations who campaign against equal rights for gays homophobic? In my mind, they are. Should they be attached to this category in an encyclopedia? I don't know.

And for the record, I could be convinced. I'm certainly not married to the idea of this category not being applied to this group. I'm just trying to be fair to an organization I 100% disagree with.

After the edit conflict, Hal kind of hit it on the head. Some Christians would respond that what the AFA is doing is out of love or scripture, and while we may believe its bullshit, not everyone or even necessarily a majority of people will... unfortunately. AniMate 06:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, this is my third post today, and I believe discussion should be kept as measured and considered as possible. This, I believe is a constructive compromise though. Here is where I believe we can safely and with care, draw the line. Organizations can go in the category, (eg, if they are investigating homophobia). But we know that homophobia is used pejoratively or construed to be pejorative at least in some cases. So we draw the line at pejorative use. How do we know its pejorative? If an organization will likely deny the accusation, (as a lot of editors have said - they would wouldn't they) then its pejorative use because they construe the label to be pejorative in that case. So, realistically, homophobia is inappropriate in those cases as they will always intrinsically be controversial, especially in the religious background case. And here is where I am trying to cater for all. Group all organizations accused of homophobia or associated with homophobia, including Nazi ones, Iran, Nigeria, and all other homosexual executioners, together in the LGBT rights and religion or similar. At least you get the chance to put all the ones you don't like together. Then homophobia can be used as a subcat without adding orgs or countries pejoratively to it. You still get the homophobia association, and you get to group organizations you hate together with nazis, and the reader gets the broader range of issues, without Wikipedia coming to a conclusion on the matter, and without the endless conflict that will be guaranteed if the category stays here and on similar religious groups and charities. Hal Cross 06:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

But we know that homophobia is used pejoratively or construed to be pejorative at least in some cases. That's wonderful Hal. Unfortunately, this is not the case on Wikipedia. I don't care if "homophobia" is the worst insult ever somewhere else, on Wikipedia the overwhelming consensus is that its use as a category, in general and in this specific case, is perfectly good and not pejorative, accusatory, insulting, or anti-Christian. Continuing to disrupt this article to make a point about homophobia is inappropriate and I suggest you stop. --Cheeser1 07:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser1, I really, really want to agree with you. I cannot. Nothing you just wrote contradicts anything Hal just wrote, nor does it add anything to this debate. I just don't understand why the compromise Orpheus and I agreed on can't be implemented. Why can't everyone get out of the trenches? You can attack Hal's position, but before you do... read this. You've been linking it, but not actually reading it. AniMate 08:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

We've read his points over and over and they have no use in this discussion. You cannot make changes to wikipedia based on what some people may or may not think. He has failed to provide any relaible scholarly evidence that homophobia is primarily seen as a pejorative term, however evidence has been provided and the consensus was made that the encyclopedic defintion of homophobia (which is on the category page, which makes it quite clear that the category is not accusatory) is a 'unreasoning fear of, antipathy, or prejudice toward homosexuals and homosexuality. Yes, we all agree that it may be used as an insult by some people, but not in scholarly sources which is what this encyclopia is based on. --Neon white 18:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I can read it, and I have, and I don't understand why we've spent weeks and weeks discussing this with Hal because he refuses to accept consensus. We should not have waited this long for any sort of approval from Hal to use the category. Only a few days ago, he insisted that he would make sure the category was eventually removed, no matter what. If you think I'm not adding anything to this debate, then I'll take my leave. It's not like we haven't already decided this matter, and I should stop wasting my time reiterating the established consensus at Hal's whim. --Cheeser1 09:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

(od) you get to group organizations you hate together with nazis - Hal, do you really think that's what this category is about? That's a terribly inappropriate accusation. Orpheus 11:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Come now, Orpheus, we are creating an attack article, after all. --Cheeser1 11:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Another good precent on wikipedia is List_of_prostitutes_and_courtesans. The word prostitute can also be used as an insult but on wikipedia it has a factual defintion. There is nothing in the article to suggest that the people listed are being insulted by being listed in that category. Whether you judge 'prostitute' as a pejorative term is largely based on one's personal view of prostitution, it's wholely subjective. Homophobia is no different. What do you suggest? removing every term and category from wikipedia that may be possibly be used as an insult? --Neon white 18:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Moreover why is the arguement solely about the AFA's inclusion in the category and not about the other orgs. listed? This is properly a discussion about the category itself which i believe has already taken place and the consensus was to keep it. This seems to me to be a repeat attempt to alter/delete the category because the other attempt failed, it's in violation of WP:POINT --Neon white 19:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It is my understanding that Hal Cross has been debating about how the category should not apply to any religious group; not only the AFA. He has been told this type of argument is against consensus and should be discussed on Category Talk:Homophobia and not on this talk page… —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 20:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason for religious groups to be considered any different to other groups. --Neon white 20:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

See also WP:FORUMSHOP. --Cheeser1 21:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Adding the homophobia category to this religious organization sets a very bad example. Wikipedia has a technically flexible categorization or grouping system which allows it to satisfy NPOV policy. There are a lot of options. This dispute is happening because some editors are insisting on a single controversial category, and categorizing by opinion, when there are so many other more appropriate alternatives that most other editors will prefer due to WP cat guidelines[205]. There are multiple editors above who have voiced objections to the category, based upon the stated categorization guidelines[206][207][208][209][210][211][212][213][214][215]. Those guidelines were written for a reason, and it was to solve problems such as this one.

As for Cheeser1’s continued accusations, there is definitely a good reason for other editors to know what is happening here. There are clearly problems with how editors are applying the homophobia category. The category itself will be far better and more carefully applied to other articles when editors see what sort of trouble happens here. This RfC has brought up multiple problems that 1. editors do object to the application of the controversial category, 2. they consider it condemnatory, 3. they consider it a term that is so vaguely defined that it makes it meaningless 4. they consider it not self-evident due to the compassionate nature of religious motives, love and scripture etc. I believe AniMate’s suggestions are particularly constructive discussion-wise, though from the literature I have read, the result of any explanations of homophobia here will simply make the category seem more controversial more inappropriate for this article.

The alternatives can be by 1. using one of multiple categories that contain more of the controversy, rather than the accusation, 2 the linking of the homophobia category as a subcategory to such a broader category, 3 the use of lists, 4. and the simple explanation of the controversy as it applies to many “homosexuality vs religious groups” on another article (eg, religion and homosexuality) with a link to that article. The alternatives will clearly reduce any conflict. I believe that as long as the category remains, with so many editors above objecting to the homophobia category in this RfC, it will just be taken away on the basis that it causes endless conflict, its just categorizing by opinion, it fails to satisfy NPOV policy, and it is unlikely that a compromise will be offered in that situation. I have no problem at all with the AFA and other religious groups being grouped together with Nazis, torturers, Darth Vader or whatever on LGBT rights and religion or similar, as it’s a category that will likely involve more of the relevant issues. Placing them in the narrow and controversial homophobia category is just categorizing by opinion[216]. So again, please state which of the alternatives or combinations of the alternatives seem to be the most acceptable to you. Hal Cross 03:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no WP:NPOV violation and this is not "categorizing by opinion"--it is a verifable fact the AFA are involved in homophobia. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 03:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

2nd post today. I never said it is an NPOV violation. NPOV is the main objective here though, and is the basis for the WP categorization recommendations [217]. It is a verifiable fact that there is an opinion that the AFA are associated with homophobia, and using those views alone is categorizing by opinion using a pejorative and controversial category. There are other views in that controversy, especially in relation to a broader religious love-scripture vs homosexuality debate that extends to legal rulings on not giving homosexuals the right to marry. Please address the issues that multiple editors have raised, and give your preferred alternative out of the ones presently on offer. Hal Cross 04:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The category should stay as is. There simple is nothing wrong with it. If it is a 'verifiable fact' then it is acceptable on wikipedia. All points have been addressed satisfactorily. --Neon white 16:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hal, you aren't in charge. Stop making demands. The issues have been addressed. Consensus was established that this category is allowed, and it is being applied correctly. Why do you continue to disrupt this article's talk page by insisting that you are right (citing a few random editors, most of whom only vaguely support your claims)? This has been settled. You need to move on - you're being disruptive and you're ignoring consensus. --Cheeser1 04:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, he has failed to acknowledge any of the valid points that have been put forward and continues to write lenghthy explainations of his own personal views on the subject. There is no attempt to address the points or reach consensus here and he continues to misrepresent other people's views out of context, all of which concerns were addressed when the comments were posted. This is not 'categorizing by opinion', there are reliable sources as Christopher Mann McKay said. Why should religious organization be any different to others? there motivations are irrelevant. The category page defines the term in depth. I have assumed good faith but I am now almost certain that this is an attempt to get this particular org. unassociated with homophobia in violation of WP:POINT. There is nothing controversial about the category --Neon white 16:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

OD. Cheeser1, and Neon white, this is an RfC that was instigated by AniMate after I made an ANI notice, other editors have responded to you[218][219][220][221][222][223][224][225][226][227], I have responded to each and every one of your questions, and you are not responding to mine. Repeatedly claiming that I have ignored points would seem be both desperate and ridiculous. And it would also imply that all other editors have ignored your points.

I believe I have been quite calm and mild about both the type of editing that editors have engaged in here, and about the state of the so-called homophobia section. Therefore, I will be much more clear in direct relation to policy;

• No Original Research: The homophobia section, and the categorization of this article as homophobia, can be considered to be OR according to the bulk of the quite biased literature in the section. There are no direct statements about homophobia on this article. Anti-gay does not categorically mean homophobia. It can mean anything from against some gay policies, to against gay activism per se. Thus to call the section homophobia seems to be OR, and to categorize the article as such is also OR.

• Neutral Point of View: Categorizing as homophobia because some people think that the AFA is something to do with homophobia it not neutral at all. It’s totally lopsided. It may be the opinion of most homosexuals, but there are other points of view especially from “family types”, other religious groups, and strongly religious people all over the world. There are other sides to the story, as has been explained above many times. It is controversial; it is part of a controversy section, in a controversial article, and the references show controversy. E.g. “In the current issue of its quarterly magazine "Intelligence Report," the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) --- contends ---that "religious leaders have engaged in 30 years of name-calling and bogus 'science' in their attack on gays. Contends clearly shows there is controversy [228]. “"I'm sure the AFA is terrified that a show like this might open people's eyes to the fact that anti-gay bigotry is neither a religious nor a family value."” Is AFA saying that they are spreading the word of anti-gay bigotry? No I don’t think so. There is a controversy, and the article is extremely biased towards homosexual rights [229].

• Verifiability. It is not verifiable at all that the AFA is categorically about homophobia. Some people’s opinion is that the AFA is anti-gay, and other people say that the AFA is just pro-life (for couple who can give birth via legal marriage etc), pro-scripture, and pro-choice to adopt a heterosexual or celibate lifestyle. As above, the only thing verifiably factual here is that there is controversy.

On all three counts, and according to WP policies, the category, and the section heading can disappear right now. So, again, please state your preferred alternative or combination therein, of the alternatives presented above[230]? Hal Cross 02:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

ummm.... no. This issue has been settled. Demanding that what you want must happen, based on a reading of policy not supported by consensus is not a "compromise." You keep linking to the same 10 or so comments, where people mentioned something that vaguely supports you, but you're the only one who hasn't come to support the consensus-backed notion that this category is fine. --Cheeser1 04:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The RfC is still open for comment and discussion: [231]. Please address the actual issues relevant to the RfC. Hal Cross 06:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hal, you really have to give up your WP:OWN and WP:POV issues on this. I was going to write a detailed rebuttal of your three-point diatribe above, but frankly it contains so many errors that I'm just going to summarise; "Anti-gay does not = homophobia"? Yes it does. See the dictionary definition. "Some people think..." or "That the AFA is homophobic may be the opinion of most homosexuals"?? - Oh, please. Just read the "Homosexual agenda" link on the AFA's website and then try to justify that paragraph again. The RFC is now closed, incidentally. The article sustains verifiability and NPOV in regards to the category, let this be an end to the issue. ELIMINATORJR 09:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

EliminatorJR. Cheeser1 has just decided to remove the RfC link from the RfC template there, stating “this RfC is staler than year-old bread”[232], and you are saying I am into WP:OWN? The editors wishing to keep the category have not even attempted to examine the alternatives to the homophobia category, or the new alternatives and information being presented, yet Cheeser1 and yourself say that the discussion is over? Editors continue to come to comment here, and they often state that the disruptive homophobia category is inappropriate[233]. They reasonably suggest alternatives. Well, it looks to me like the category will be removed due to reasonable categorization guidelines nevertheless [234][235][236][237][238][239][240][241][242][243][244]. You may like (or not like) to keep in mind that it is an abuse to use consensus to trump NPOV policy. Anyway, if you are not interested in the alternatives, then I guess that’s another set of opportunities you have just missed. Thats fine by me. Hal Cross 10:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

keep in mind that it is an abuse to use consensus to trump NPOV policy - once again, you've made a critical mistake. Consensus is what DEFINES npov policy and how we apply it. There is nothing that consensus can't trump, except what's handed down from Jimbo Wales and the ArbCom - that's how Wikipedia operates. --Cheeser1 10:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser1. If you want to be active on Wikipedia with a disregard for the broader Wikipedia consensus, e.g. [245] then you take the fall for your actions. Wikipedia should be developed with more than a pro-homosexual activism consensus in mind. I repeat; "it is important to also include the facts on which competing opinions are based since this helps a reader evaluate the credibility of the competing viewpoints. This should be done without implying that any one of the opinions is correct."[246]. This has been the basis behind all of the above editor's objections to the category, and that has been roundly dismissed by the editors who wish to keep the conflict-provoking category. Hal Cross 10:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes Hal, you've got me. I'm a pro-homosexual activist who's out to turn Wikipedia into a giant pile of attack pages that undermine all of your favorite fuzzy-friendly religious groups, and to compare them to Nazis. You've figured it out, and I bow to your insight. --Cheeser1 10:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This is about the third or four slipped comment he has made that suggests he is linked to the anti-gay movement and has a [WP:COI]] --Neon white 15:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion suggestion

The discussion on this issue does not seem to be proceeding well. I would like to ask one question which may get to the heart of the debate. The article Pope_Benedict_XVI does not state that the Pope holds irrational views. Yet many people seem happy with applying a category which says that AFA is irrational. So I would like to ask. Should the Pope article explicitly say that he is irrational? Would that be neutral? I am particularly interested in the views of Orpheus, HalCross and AniMate. Eiler7 12:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what the point of the question is. I think your premise is wrong - the category does not say that the AFA is irrational. Homophobia isn't a clinical diagnosis, remember, so "irrational fear" isn't necessarily included. Orpheus 13:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Orpheus. There is nothing that states that the category is limited to any single snippet of the dictionary definition (which is, of course, also quite narrow and limited in its scope). There is absolutely nothing in the category, in use or definition, to suggest that it implies that articles in its scope are "irrational." --Cheeser1 14:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Eiler7. The discussion will most likely continue despite some editors wanting the RfC to finish. Keeping the homophobia category in the article requires that it be defined so broadly that it becomes meaningless and applicable to a huge range of religious groups, government organizations, and laws. The category also seems to require that editors use contradictory arguments in order to keep it in.

In relation to your question, the issue of rationality relates most directly to the reasons behind anyone’s decision to act on their beliefs.

Firstly, if it is not the “irrational” part of the so-called definition of homophobia, then it must be driven by rational thought. The AFA (and all Christian, and other religious groups) are being rational when they state their scripture-supported beliefs about homosexuality. They put forward a point of view that is logical. The basic logic of those religious groups is; Scripture discourages homosexuality, and homosexuality is just a test to be overcome. The ideal is heterosexuality according to those religions, as it’s a general pro-life idea. Life is sacred etc. So they rationally provide facilities and community for people to become ex-gay. Part of that community provision is to spread the word that it is not ideal to be homosexual, and it is very possible and desirable to become ex-gay. By all accounts, it’s a compassion based argument.

One of the terms they use in the argument is – “sexual sin”.

I say argument, because there are two sides to it. Homosexuality has become more open during the past decades. Homosexuals do not want to be discriminated against. So their side of the story is that the religious ideals are not at all ideal. They believe it is their right to be homosexual, and it is far better to adopt a homosexual lifestyle. They believe that people who are homosexual should be homosexual and not try to be anything else. Again, it’s largely a compassion based argument.

One of the terms they use in the argument is – “homophobia”.

Those are two rational arguments in a controversy that sometimes use words that are designed to persuade. In both cases, they are not terms that are particularly nice and they are not particularly encyclopedic.

The editors above want to tell you that the AFA are being rational, but they also want to deny that the homophobia label is part of a controversy. Its just one contradiction out of many.

If you just regularly ask simple rational questions here, it’s quite likely that the homophobia category will tend to look more and more ridiculous on this and similar articles. It will also be likely that the homophobia category itself will end up deleted, or at the very least have its name changed. I believe its just one of those inevitable things, as long as editors care about editing properly. Hal Cross 07:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The category is not "meaningless" and we are not talking about "religious groups, government organizations, and laws"—we are only discussing the AFA on this talk page; keep your arguments with the category in general at Category Talk:Homophobia.

The AFA’s homosexual stances are not "driven by rational thought". The AFA believes that "God" told some people to write his beliefs down in what is now know as the bible. The AFA believes God does not approve of homosexuals, and that God told a few people to write about his disapproval of homosexual in the bible, which is the same book that states the world is flat and many other unscientific, un-factual, and contradictory things. How is that rational? Oh, Wait! You can’t answer that question because there is no way the AFA's stances and beliefs regarding homosexuals are rational!—Christopher Mann McKay^talk 07:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

But none of that matters - Hal's entire comment was an irrelevancy. It's clear that the AFA is involved in the wider debate around homophobia, regardless of what positions they hold in that debate. Orpheus 07:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I know none of it matters; I was just correcting Hal Cross' inaccurate statements. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 08:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Bingo! CMMK and Orpheus, you have just contradicted yourselves again in the same section. CMMK, we all know your stance on religion [247]. I would like to remind you that "love thy neighbour" is a pretty well respected dictum in most places in the world, and as an ideal it is shows quite a human virtue. Religious views on some common sexual activities can sometimes seem a bit harsh. In practice it often leads to sensible laws though, especially in terms of dealing with sexual crimes. Its also often rationally argued with religious scripture often used as support. This is all entirely relevant, and the way the category is used in other articles is a subject that is relevant here. I don't know how many times editors have told me to stop re-capping, re-explaining WP recommendations, and exploring alternatives, but I am really starting to get the impression that any discussion at all will show the homophobia category to be inappropriate for this article. Hal Cross 09:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

None of that has any relevance at all. This is not a discussion about religion. People have been quite patient so far, but you continue to disrupt the consensus by trying to move the discussion away from the original point which in my opinion has already finished. --Neon white 15:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is totally inappropriate. Hal, nobody cares if you can argue the AFA's position as well as the next guy. This isn't the place to discuss whether or not the AFA is rational or not. You said so yourself. Chris and Orpheus, let it go. This is nonsense, consensus has decided this issue, and we don't have any reason to entertain Hal's nonsense or insistence that he will eventually remove the category. --Cheeser1 09:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Cheeser1. Third and last post today. The issue has been raised by Eiler7. Its a valid point, and is similar to some of the logical points that AniMate has raised. Your answers to Eiler's question show that the AFA are called homophobic when they rationally argue for support of their beliefs. They put rational arguments forward that they believe will improve America. As a charity, they are being funded to advocate those rights. The general population of the US are funding those points of advocacy. The right for free expression of religion and so on. I didn't say I will remove the category, only that I believe WP consensus on categorization, when followed correctly, would have the category removed. The consensus of editors voting for a condemnatory category, is irrelevant when the consensus of WP would remove such a controversial categorization. The point about rationality here can lead to other more encyclopedic alternatives to a condemnatory categorization by opinion. Are you still closed to multiple alternatives? Hal Cross 10:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This issue has been decided already. Neither you nor I have any place filibustering this talk page until we get our way (which is what you're doing, Hal). --Cheeser1 10:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The consensus has decided otherwise on both occasions. The AFA are associated with homophobia therefore they stay in the category. The validity of the category is not to be discussed here, i believe it has already been agreed beforehand that it stays. --Neon white 15:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it has been. --Cheeser1 23:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser1, according to the links that you just posted, here are some of the comments that editors wrote as provisos for keeping the category:

To avoid POV problems, it should only be used for articles on the phenomenon of homophobia. If it is controversial whether an article belongs in this category or not, then most likely it doesn't belong. It looks like this category is being systematically misused in a biased politicised manner, and it could hardly be otherwise. Inherently POV. The definition of homophobia used by the gay lobby is extreme and intolerant. However, category should be monitored to ensure articles aren't being added to it inappropriately. but on the other hand the categories can easily become filled with POV material (and thus, if kept, should be policed closely) "Homophobia" is a perjorative term, and the category does not provide adequate distinction between violent and nonviolent anti-LGBT entities. This is a trouble magnet that lacks objective criteria.

The category is inappropriate for the AFA and similar article, and the policing of the category needs to be stepped up. Care to comment? Hal Cross 02:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No. You have no right to demand that I "comment" on what has already been decided by consensus. You might think that the category is inappropriate, but it isn't. Consensus determines policy, and determines how it applies in every single case. You can call upon the consensus that formed NPOV policy, but there was a consensus that this category is fine. ignoring it and continuing to advocate against the category in the wrong places is disruptive. --Cheeser1 02:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser1, when have I ever demanded anything? You infer that I have demanded stuff all over this discussion page. I am simply discussing the links that you provided. You have shown yet another inconsistency. There is a huge discrepancy between voting for the homophobia category to stay, and the actual comments written by the people discussing the category. For the most part, the comments reflect what was said about the "Homophobic organization" category [248]. The links you have provided show many NPOV oriented statements that would remove the homophobia category from this article. You don't seem to want to respond to any of the pertinent issues in this discussion page. The talkpage is here so that such issues can be discussed. You seem to have a habit of not even accepting the existence of the relevant points. I believe you are under an obligation as a Wikipedian to respond to reasonable discussion. Thats not my demand, that seems to be a basic requirement of Wikipedia. So far you have largely failed to respond to the issues. Under such circumstances I believe your editing and comments here are unconstructive. Hal Cross 03:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Gosh Hal, did it ever occur to you that the consensus at this CfD has nothing to do with this category because IT'S NOT ABOUT THIS CATEGORY. There are four CfDs within a few months that have confirmed that the overwhelming consensus is to keep this category in its current use. The fact that you want to accuse us of not obeying what you seem to think is the "Basic requirement of Wikipedia" is irrelevant - consensus is how we make decisions, and consensus disagrees with you. Your points may be relevant, or they may not be, but this issue should be (and has been) decided by consensus rule. Insisting that we keep discussing this until the outcome is what you want it to be, that's the disruptive part. --Cheeser1 06:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

See below for yet another example - it's a pattern, and it's becoming a right pain. Orpheus 06:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser1. This information, this CfD is exactly relevant to this discussion. The discussion therein applies exactly to how or how not to categorize articles. The current categorization of the AFA in the homophobia category is a categorization by opinion, and its just one side of a large self-evident controversy between religious types, and gay activists. The point is that you have not even begun to address the issues. You have generally avoided the issues, and spent most of the time going against Wikiquette by accusing me of demanding things, being disruptive and so on, when in fact I am responding to your links, comments, and addressing the issues. Even before the RfC you, Orpheus, and CMMK were attacking me as an editor, accusing me of lying, and seemingly trying to drive me away from this article[[249]][[250]]. I am the only long term opposition to your views on the homophobia category, yet you have failed to address the issues raised by myself and all the other editors who commented here about the inappropriateness of the category[251][252][253][254][255][256][257][258][259][260]. Editors have already asked you to refrain from discussing editors here, yet you continue against Wikiquette. Please address the issues that appear in the comments of the CfD links that you presented above. Hal Cross 06:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hal, if you're being disruptive (which you are), then I am certainly entitled to say so, without it being a personal attack. You continue to ask that I "address the issues" but they have been, and consensus has already decided this matter. I have nothing more to say to you. --Cheeser1 07:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser1, would you like me to list all the questions you haven't answered, the issues you haven't addressed, and the alternatives you have dismissed without discussion? Its getting to be a pretty long list. Hal Cross 07:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Background/context Section

Hello all. There is a need for this article to have a context or background, without it jumping right into POV about what the AFA does. That background section was removed yet again [261]. Orpheus's statement says that the information has been removed according to consensus. However, there is new information there, which comes from reliable sources, and all the information there is reliable. Please state why you would object to the presentation of this encyclopedic information. Hal Cross 03:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Try adding the new material seperately without re-adding all the other stuff that's been done several times already. It's disruptive to continue insisting on your version of that text. Some of it was removed per WP:V, some of it was reworded and put in more appropriate sections, and some of it was taken out because it was unnecessarily repetitive. If you have new things to add to the article, then go for it, but remember the disclaimer at the bottom of the edit box: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it. Orpheus 03:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Please specify which parts you believe are not verifiable, and state why. I added the text in sections. I have responded to your objections. You have once again referred to consensus, when it is inappropriate to do so. In fact you seem to be using consensus to overcome NPOV policy. Please explain why you continue to engage in such such activities. Hal Cross 03:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You apparently didn't pay much attention to my comments the last few times. I don't really see the point in repeating the same discussion every few weeks. Orpheus 03:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

So basically it doesn't matter how much new material is presented[262], or how the older information is adjusted to cater for prior objections[263][264]? Does that mean that any information I present, no matter how well researched and supported by reliable sources, it will all be deleted or suppressed regardless?[265] Hal Cross 04:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You didn't adjust the material. It was a typo-for-typo copy of what you added the last two times. There's nothing obviously wrong with the Balmer reference but sticking it in the middle of all the other stuff isn't really productive - why not try adding it to the article on its own, instead of tucked in with a bunch of reverted reversions. Also, please learn to reference properly - it's a pain for everyone else to have to clean up your referencing style. Orpheus 04:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Orpheus on this one. Much of the information is repetitive and unnecessary. Do we really need to tell readers the organization was founded in Tupelo twice. I do think some of the info is salvageable, and working it into the article shouldn't be too hard. And since you do seem to be struggling with the referencing format, I think this page should help you get over that hurdle. AniMate 04:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link AniMate. The information was a work in progress before it was simply deleted. The habit of Orpheus and CMMK, seems to be to kneejerk revert rather than improve [266], and to claim consensus to delete good research. There is more information to add to the dates of formation, for example. Again, to my knowledge, I have never removed any well sourced critical information from this article. The trend seems to be that any positive views of the AFA or the information and activities they engage in tends to be deleted out of hand or suppressed, and contextual information on the broader concerns of the AFA charity is removed. This is an absurd situation. Working any of that information into the article will likely be as impossible as it has always been, as long as the article is held hostage by the current self-contradictory and condemnatory pro-gay-agenda POV. For example, information was worked into the article, but yet another excuse was trumped up in order to lose the offensively positive information[267]. Luckily, the situation is so ridiculously anti-NPOV that it is impossible not to maintain a sense of humor about it. Hal Cross 05:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of information about the AFA's fight against child pornography

Well its pretty clear that certain editors here want the homophobia category to stay here. I found some consistency at last: Its pretty consistent that any positive information about the AFA helping in the fight against child porn will be removed from the article [268]. I don't think its the sort of consistency that Wikipedia is looking for though. So I added the information again using citations [269], and low and behold we have more consistency: Orpheus kneejerk removed the newly sourced information, just five minutes after it was presented, and again inappropriately stating that the new information has been dealt with before [270]. Anyone care to comment on how more ridiculous this might get? Hal Cross 07:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, now here’s an interesting development; Here we have Cheeser1, (apparently something to do with the Wikiquette team) recommending to Orpheus and CMMK that my edits should be automatically reverted [271][272]. Now, where did I put that article about WP:OWN again? Hal Cross 07:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Hal Cross 08:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

My recommendation was to revert any edits he makes, if they are disputed and defy the established consensus. That is standard procedure for disruptive/non-consensus editing. You deliberately misquoted me, which brings me to my next point: the information you continue to add is being removed becuase it is not supported by reliable sources. Some of the sources are unreliable (e.g. PR firms releasing AFA statements) and the rest of the sources don't support the claims you're using them to make. There's no conspiracy, and this isn't "kneejerk" stuff - this issue was discussed quite some time ago, including all the content/sources you keep adding. The sources did not (and still do not) adequately support the content you're trying to add to the article. --Cheeser1 11:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser1, allow me to point out some simple facts. The situation is one where several editors are using brute consensus to push one opinion in a controversy, whereas Wikipedia recommendations on balanced editing and NPOV [273]indicate that you and the other two editors are wrong. You want the AFA to be categorized as homophobia. The article is unbalanced and editors here are not allowing the broader information about the AFA[274]. They are deleting rather than improving [275]. You have asked for reliable sources, and whenever reliable sources are presented you, or the editors you are conferring with, delete my edits and are continuing to delete core and self-evident information about the AFA. The AFA are mainly concerned about indecency in the media. You have failed to assume good faith. I did not deliberately misquote you at all. I gave my account of the situation. Did you see PR Presswire in my last edits[276]? No, you are talking about a ref you objected to and I adjusted accordingly, regardless of whether the ref is good or not. The difference here is that I respond to your objections, and you fail to respond to my improvements. You and the other editors just delete out of hand. Kneejerk fashion! Within minutes or hours! When you have three editors who seem to have used brute consensus overcome multiple objections from outside editors [277][278][279][280][281][282][283][284][285][286]who refer directly to WP guidelines, and you have failed to respond to non-conflict provoking alternatives, then you have a ridiculous situation. Your general attitude is to allow OR to support your opinion that the AFA are homophobic [287], and that, because some people from one side of a controversy say they are anti-gay or homophobic, then they should be categorized according to your opinion. You allow information into the controversy section because you say it is controversial, yet you deny that information is obviously and globally controversial so that you can apply the homophobia category. Your denials are self-contradictory and ridiculous. I point you again, to the alternatives that were presented to you in the above discussion. What is your response? Hal Cross 14:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, your complaints merit no response. So I give you none. --Cheeser1 15:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, no response beyond what has already been given over and over again on 930 kB of talk page, at least. Orpheus 15:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser1. Your responses have been consistently dismissive from start to finish [288], including consistently dismissing RfC comments and NPOV oriented WP guidelines on categorization [289] and claiming consensus in order to remove reliable views about the AFA that just happen to be positive. I have presented reliably sourced information on the AFA and there is a lot more to add. Continue working with other editors of your own POV [290][291] to remove reliably sourced information at your own risk. Your edits are all on record, and you seem to be part of a concerted deletion [292][293] of a rather obvious and self evident set of facts about a Christian organization that was set up to promote decency Hal Cross 15:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Hal Cross 16:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)