Talk:Gay agenda/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Marginally related information

The section "In religion and philosophy" is not a good part of the article. It really should be just left to article regarding Opposition to Gay rights or whatever. A reference to that article is sufficient. This part does not refer to the very specific concept of "Gay Agenda".

The section about "Judicial reference to the term" sticks out like a sore thumb. It is really just a specific instance of the use of the term and is not particularly so wonderful or noteable so that it deserves its own section.

I think the article would be concise and to the point if both sections were eliminated. They are trivial elements or not significantly related to the topic. --Anon 64 04:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

We've discussed this before. The basic idea is that religious and philosophical opposition is a primary reason the term is used today. Also, the judicial reference is an example of how the term has become well known, even at the highest levels of government and law. I think both are relevant enough to remain in the article. DavidBailey 11:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I have re-read the first section, and I can see how it might sort of be relevant, though it is muddy. The Scalia quote is really not that important. It could be simply a footnote. At the very least, its presentation should be more in line with what you said: It is an example of its common use, rather than an example of use in Law.

The first section is very very marginally important. The concept of religious and philosophical opposition, I think, is already covered elsewhere so this is not needed. But even if it isn't covered elsewhere this section is not really about the "Gay Agenda" but rather it is about opposition to Homosexuality in general. It pretty much admits that in the first paragraph. And I think that is an incorrect view generally -- that the concept of "Homosexual Agenda" is tightly tied to general opposition to homosexuality. There could be specific examples where it is, but I really believe that is not the rule in the sense that it was this opposition to homosexuality that drove this term but rather the reaction to an activist effort to enact various changes to society generally. Maybe you do not consider this a big distinction but I do. There is an underlying social clash that can be characterized as opposition to homosexuality generally and there is a separate but related clash on a political level that operates by different rules and vocabulary. It is in this latter relm that the term "homosexual agenda" operates and not the former. Putting them together I thing blurs this important distinction. In particular a person may not need to be especially alarmed about homosexual behavior per se, and yet, though a fear of societal change still be concerned about the homosexual agenda (and I think thats how many of them are). On the other hand, a person does not need to fear society change in any way and still be opposed to homosexuality. So I see a pretty big difference -- even though I can understand how someone else might not. If the article does not recognize this difference I think it will be both inaccurate and it will be biased. Hope that makes sense. (Im kinda sleepy so I may not be expressing myself very clearly)

And then the article sort of wildly dives into a statement by the new Bishop in the Episcopal Church. That statement, in itself is somewhat relevant though it does not really support the rest of the article which describes homosexual agenda as a term used by opponents or sarcastically. So perhaps the first part of this section could be deleted and then a new section called something like "Friendly uses of the term" or "Other uses of the term" or something like that. Maybe Scalia goes there although really I just do not see the great significance of his comment.--Anon 64 13:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Anon64 that these sections should be removed. This has come up several times now, and the prevailing view has been that they are only indirectly relevant and should be removed or integrated. Fireplace 18:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree, as I've said for weeks now. David Bailey's claims of relevance are not convincing. The only reason I haven't removed them is because I have no doubt that he would immediately revert. CovenantD 19:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, let him. If he reverts against consensus, he will either have to give up or face a block on 3RR violation. Our job is to enforce the consensus, understanding that any attempt by him to edit-war will be ultimately self-destructive. Al 19:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed that paragraph. If Bailey reverts, I will not counter-revert. It will be up to the consensus of editors to make their views known. Al 19:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I am avoiding making any direct changes either way, because I am interested in a cooperative venture. I prefer to try to make my case here and give it time for consideration. I do not feel that in this topic, making a case and then making an immediate change is helpful. I believe everyone wants to do the right thing but we go about it in different ways, and may not agree on what "right" is. But our hearts are not evil! I appreciate everone's generous and thoughtful responses. --Anon 64 13:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The relevance/importance objections were to the whole sections. I've removed them. There might be room for some of this material in a footnote, but if so it should be rewritten from scratch. Fireplace 19:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Anon 64 is correct - these sections unbalance the article and should not be there. I think we have a fair consensus for these changes. Sophia 07:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't revert when three or four people with the same POV agree. Could someone explain why information relevant to the article has to be deleted? It is not in the leading paragraph. Most of the text has been removed, except for a brief description. What harm does it do to the article to leave it in place? It shows: 1) The religious basis that most social conservatives have to define the term and use the term. And 2) a notable example of someone in a high position using the term. These are both relevant to the article. DavidBailey 11:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I tend to not like removing information, so my bias is to agree with you in that regard. After reading several comments, I think that the two quotes showing useage of the term "Homosexual Agenda" by Gene Robinson and by Antonin Scalia, could be preserved in a final section that may show how the term can be used in other contexts. Having said that, I am still not sure that Scalia's quote fits. I think that the comments about the religious aspect should not really be a whole separate section. Perhaps a way around this is to open the new section (I do not know what to call it) like this

Although the term is generally used by social conservatives it is sometimes used by others as well. And then list some quotes with minor context comments.

I also STRONGLY feel that the link to: LGBT rights opposition should be kept prominently somewhere. Perhaps in a "See also" category.

The part that I see as really truly throw away is this: "Most groups who use the term are also opposed to its fulfillment, and to the advancement of the gay rights movement generally. Christian, Jewish, and Islamic social conservatives view homosexuality as a sin, and its practice and acceptance in society as a weakening of moral standards. This is a primary reason why many religious social conservatives oppose the gay rights movement. Some also cite natural law as a reason." And "A coalition of mainline Protestant groups also recently campaigned successfully against a referendum in the state of Washington to repeal an anti-discrimination measure passed to protect gay men and lesbians." To my eye, these defocus the topic and are sufficiently and properly covered under other articles. I am, I think, open to reason though!  :-) --Anon 64 13:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Taking Anon64's points in order... I don't think that the Scalia or Robinson quotes are out-of-the-norm uses. Scalia uses the term in a way similar to Dobson or Sears (as quoted above), and Robinson in the "claiming the term for one's own" way (but not, this time, for comic effect). I made some edits to get them back in... see what you think.

I agree about LGBT rights opposition, and it is prominently linked in the first sentence. Fireplace 13:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I know it should be Linked because I think that there is a strong sense or element of that around this issue. At least there is a smell of it. But that first sentence bugs me as it is now, because it makes the use of the term "Homosexual Agenda" essentially synonymous with Gay Rights Opposition. Maybe its a difference without a distinction but I see a different quality to being opposed to Gay rights and being opposed to changes in social order. In my mind I see people who are opposed to gay rights as having no real concerns about society, just being against gays. And I see people who are opposed to changes in society as not necessarily having a problem with gays being gay, but they are concerned with lifestyle. For example this guy who has the "GodhatesFags" website. To me he does not look like he gives a lick about society. He is in fact anti-society ... look at how many societies he hates. And he also hates gays. On the other hand, I have heard very some very rational voices -- including some that support various aspects of protections for gays -- not be in favor of societal changes and to speak out against them. To me, this distinction is important. --Anon 64 13:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone could (and probably does) use the term with that distinction in mind, but it's not always used that way. A possible case in point is the Scalia example... he cites anti-job-discrimination requirements as evidence that the "law profession has signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda", and in the broader context of sodomy laws. These more clearly fall into the "gay rights" bag than the "societal change" bag.

A term like this is inevitably vague across usage, and fine distinctions often won't be intended. Maybe we could add a sentence about this. Fireplace 14:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I knew David Bailey wouldn't be able to leave the irrelevant portions out of this. CovenantD 01:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant in your and three other's opinions. Not irrelevant in mine or one other's opinion. That is not a consensus. DavidBailey 02:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Anon64, the homosexual agenda, and societal change

Anon64 said above at several points that (s)he believes the people who use the term "homosexual agenda" are not necessarily opposed to homosexuality, but are opposed to certain changes in society, if I understood the extensive remarks (but clearer than abbreviated remarks would have been) correctly. Why would someone who is not opposed to homosexuality be concerned if society became more accepting of homosexuality? What kind of society is it which is not accepting of homosexuality, and in which media present only heterosexual messages? Which people have contributed to society being that way and which have a vested interest in keeping it that way which would lead them to being opposed to the changes which are purportedly part of the "homosexual agenda"?--Bhuck 15:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not making myself very clear I think. I believe that they might indeed not agree with homosexuality, but this in itself does not cause them to imagine a "homosexual agenda" or take an action. It is the activist efforts at changing social values -- the key element that is driving the action and that is defining what people mean by "homosexual agenda". Now to get to your specific question: Why would someone who is not opposed to homosexuality be concerned about society, etc. Answer: Such people, and I do not know that there are many but there have been some notable examples in prior societies, may not be concerned about individual behavior but may be concerned about a society wide change. Among other reasons.. any change is scary to most people and a change of basic values can be threatening. I do not know that you can attach a label to a society which is not accepting of homosexuality and in which media present only heterosexual messages. I am unaware of a label for this. But the people who have a vested interest in that society could be nearly everyone. Fathers, Mothers, Children. They might all want things to stay just the same as they always did, if they were happy. People do not want change if they think things are fine.

sorry for being so long winded previously but when I am sleepy my thoughts run too long. --Anon 64 19:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I recently bumped into a quote to the effect that, while we do not expect that society be free of murder, we do expect that it be illegal. (The context was an opposition to capital punishment, as it was on an Amnesty International business card.)

Perhaps the same logic follows here. It may be that some people are fine with homosexuality so long as it's closeted and hated, but are afraid of the effect that public acceptance of homosexuality may have.

What effects? I can only speculate, but here's a plausible possibility. Consider that the traditional religious marriage is based on strong sex roles, where the man is the head of the family and the woman is to trust and obey, not lead. This is defended in terms of God's will and the natural order. After all, if a marriage is inherently between a man and a woman, and the man is inherently on top, then it's obvious why the woman can't be an equal, right?

This argument would be disrupted if there were societally sanctioned marriages where both partners are male or both are female. In such marriages, neither partner can dominate on the basis of inherent sex roles, so there is the possibility of equality. And if it's possible for gays, why shouldn't it be possible for straight women? In other words, gay marriage may negatively impact the religious man's ability to justify his dominion over his wife. The homosexual agenda is therefore a threat to headship, though homosexuality in itself is not.

Anyhow, this is just one reasonable explanation, but I hope it illustrates the issue. Al 19:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

What is being illustrated is your projection of a POV upon someone else, then arguing with that position. No need to go into all the Propaganda ramifications of that technique. Suffice it to say that it's an easy, but intellectually dishonest way to advance one's own POVPollinator 03:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot to be said for assuming good faith. In fact, I'd recommend that you try it. You'll find that, since you won't be reacting to quite so many things with hostility, others will treat you more seriously. Until then... Al 04:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is it that you assume when someone disagrees with you they are exhibiting bad faith? DavidBailey 11:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think what you are saying is mostly reasonable and plausible. But, I also think people are not so much concerned about homosexuality being closeted and hated as much as its "Not in my back yard". Similar to siting landfills, nuclear missile silos, etc, people will say, ok we accept that as part of a society but not in my back yard. Some may simply just want gays closeted and hated as you say. But I think most would like to say "live and let live" but ... like religion "dont force it down my throat - and don't change anything about my social structure to fit your ideas of what is right". This, however, is a secondary issue to the article. The article is about the concept of the "Homosexual Agenda" and how that term is used. In this regard, I believe it is used by one set of activists to refer to the plans and goals of the other set of activists. --Anon 64 03:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, the idea is that they accept that it exists, just so long as it's not sanctioned as normal. It is societal sanction that makes homosexuality a threat to the traditional marriage, not homosexuality itself.

I am not 100% sure about your first sentence, but that second sentence seems to be dead on. --Anon 64 12:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I brought all this up in an attempt to offer some indirect support for your statement as well as perhaps some insight into the thought processes of these people. For our intents, it's just some OR to help us decide what non-OR content to keep.

Oh, and I found the original quote:

"We do not expect to live in a culture where murder does not exist, we do demand that it not be legal." - Albert Camus.

Al 04:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

So you're comparing people who oppose changing a two-thousand-plus-year tradition of marriage to a person of the opposite sex, not a first cousin, and of the acceptable age of adulthood with a murderer? That's a non-POV view, isn't it! DavidBailey 11:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow - I see why we have so many problems here. Of all the ways I can read Al's post - I never come out with David's interpretation. Al is drawing a parallel between societies views on homosexuality and the capital punishment debate. Basically the quote says that although we know these things go on, as long as it's not openly approved then society can cope with it. Anon 64 has been saying that a lot of people feel like that about homosexuals and I think he's right about the nimby attitude of some. Sophia 13:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, let me express it this way. Al is a pretty smart guy. I'm sure that it hasn't escaped him that by making the comparison, he is comparing a group that he disagrees vehemently with with murderers. I don't think, and never thought, he was drawing a distinct parallel, but such comparisons are clever form of deniable slander. DavidBailey 00:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm even smarter than that, as I was actually comparing homosexuality with murder. In both cases, it's not something we can ever stamp out, but we do have the option of punishing it and otherwise making it socially unacceptable. I'm saying that, as per Anon 64's comment, there are people who are more opposed to the social acceptability of homosexuality than homosexuality itself, on the basis of the consequences to traditional (read: male-dominated) marriage. Please assume good faith and read a little bit more carefully. Al 00:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your clear and better worded clarification of what my position was. (I might not have said "male dominated but otherwise I think you represented me even better than I did. Thank you. --Anon 64 19:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Al, assuming good faith on your part in any interaction with me has proven challenging. My apologies. DavidBailey 02:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Glad to have done so. Al 22:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, this idea of society being able to absorb it under certain circumstances has an historic parallel. In ancient Rome, Augustus Ceasar was buggering boys and women other than his wife, when he came out in staunch support for what was then labled "Family Values". Clearly not a private supporter of that concept (People in his family were exiled and murdered) he nevertheless thought society needed protections from changes he saw going on and, for example, tried to increase the penalties for the very laws he broke. --Anon 64 13:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

any change is scary to most people and a change of basic values can be threatening. [...T]he people who have a vested interest in [a society which is not accepting of homosexuality and in which media present only heterosexual messages] could be nearly everyone. Fathers, Mothers, Children. They might all want things to stay just the same as they always did, if they were happy. People do not want change if they think things are fine. This is an interesting comment by Anon64 above. What are the basic values inherent in presenting only heterosexual messages? Are the fathers of gay sons happy that their sons are not accepted by society? Are mothers who live in lesbian partnerships and conceived by artificial insemination happy about media presenting only heterosexual messages? Are children who are worried about how to tell their parents that they are gay threatened by change? Sometimes one can think things are fine because one has not been made aware of the problems of others (just because you haven't heard that female genital mutilation occurs in Africa doesn't mean you would think it was good if someone told you about it). --Bhuck 15:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Positive Note

I know that people are working hard to create a good article. It is difficult because of the tensions involved in the issues. And they are so current. If this were about something 100 years ago it would be easier. However, I would like to add a commendation to everyone for the quality of their thinking and efforts. I would also like to say that I watched the discussion about the section now called: Characterization of the agenda. There were some times when that section was just awful. But people worked on it and it appears to me, to now be dead on, simply by the use of quotes. So I congratulate everyone for that and I know that the whole article will improve in a similar manner. It seems like such a small article for so much work but it is getting to be a good one. And really, it does not need to be a big article. Brevity is a virtue.--Anon 64 13:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Cites Needed

These two statement:

• Groups such as the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation deny the existence any secret or subversive agenda.
• Mainstream LGBT organizations do not support changing age of consent laws or legalizing polygamy.

Are probably true, but given the good quality of the article to this point, they need to be cited. They stand out as being just assertions. I am not arguing with them -- I do not know for sure, but I would expect them to be true. I'm just saying that they need cites.--Anon 64 13:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

First Paragraph Versions again

I am just starting a new topic so that it is easier to read.

David Bailey supported the old paragraph so I am including it here.

Old Paragraph

The Homosexual Agenda (or the gay agenda) is a term used by opponents to describe the goals of gay rights activists to increase acceptance of homosexuality in public policies, media, and culture. It refers to what they see as an attempt to redefine marriage and family, and to shift focus away from traditional morality. The term is offensive to some gay rights supporters[4], who see the goals of the movement to be merely advocating equal rights.

Current Paragraph

The homosexual agenda (or the gay agenda) is a term used by those opposed to the LGBT rights movement, especially conservative Christians and other social conservatives in the United States, to describe what they see as the attempt to redefine marriage and family, and shift focus away from what they consider traditional morality. The term is offensive to many, particularly those who see the goals of the movement to be equal rights. Often, those who would be offended by a serious reference to this term still use it satirically or sarcastically.

New Proposals

(bold is new content)

The homosexual agenda (or the gay agenda) is a term used in the U.S. by those opposed to the LGBT rights movement, especially conservative Christians and other social conservatives in the United States, to describe the goals of gay rights activists to increase acceptance of homosexuality through public policies, media exposure, and cultural change. Most often it is a term employed by social conservatives, in reference to what they see as the attempt to redefine marriage and family, and shift focus away from what they consider traditional morality. The term is offensive to many, particularly those who see the goals of the movement to be equal rights. Often, those who would be offended by a serious reference to this term still use it satirically or sarcastically.

which produces (if I edited correctly):

The homosexual agenda (or the gay agenda) is a term used in the U.S. to describe the goals of gay rights activists to increase acceptance of homosexuality through public policies, media exposure, and cultural change. Most often it is a term employed by social conservatives, in reference to what they see as the attempt to redefine marriage and family, and shift focus away from what they consider traditional morality. The term is offensive to many, particularly those who see the goals of the movement to be equal rights. Often, those who would be offended by a serious reference to this term still use it satirically or sarcastically.

Im not saying the latter is wonderful, but I think it is more accurate.

Looks pretty good, with two changes: First, "the goals of gay rights activists" -> "the goals of the LGBT rights movement". The drive to increase LGBT acceptance is a lot broader than gay activists, and in these contexts "activists" is often used in an "attacking" way. Second, "increase acceptance of homosexuality" -> "increase LGBT acceptance" or "increase acceptance of the LGBT community". Various style guides (e.g., the NY Times style guide) recommend only using "homosexual" over the preferred "gay" in clinical contexts. Fireplace 14:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

As an overseas participant, I would like to leave out the "In the US" in the first sentence. It would be fine to qualify the term later by saying "The term is used most frequently in the United States" or something. But it is certainly not an inherent part of the definition--if a Canadian utters the words "homosexual agenda", (s)he is not misusing the term just because of being north of the 49th parallel.--Bhuck 15:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it necessary to attribute the goals to particular people? What about "... to describe the goal of increasing acceptance of homosexuality through public policies, media exposure, and cultural change."? Or "... to describe public policies, media exposure, and cultural changes that increase the acceptance of homosexuality."?--Bhuck 15:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know if the term is commonly used outside the U.S.? Also, I like Bhuck's second suggestion. Combined with mine, that would bring the proposal to:

The homosexual agenda (or the gay agenda) is a term used in the U.S. to describe the goal of increasing LGBT acceptance through public policies, media exposure, and cultural change. Most often it is a term employed by social conservatives, in reference to what they see as the attempt to redefine marriage and family, and shift focus away from what they consider traditional morality. The term is offensive to many, particularly those who see the goals of the movement to be equal rights. Often, those who would be offended by a serious reference to this term still use it satirically or sarcastically.

Fireplace 15:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually that seems pretty good. I think its better than my last version. Reads better or something. And I think it retains good accuracy too. If, however, it is not specific to the US (I sort of thought it was, but what do I know?) then that bit about "in the US" should be struck, but otherwise, I think its pretty good! And, perhaps its not a good yard stick, but it is sort of bland ... non-confrontational... which I think is a virtue in an article that has potential to give offense to one side or the other! (I hope that no one feels that their perspective has been ignored or ruined). And again, Congratulations to everyone for working with good intent and with a presumption of good faith. Group Hug ((((( Everyone ))))) --Anon 64 00:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not used in the UK at all as far as I know. We don't have the vocal religious groups that the US does and being gay is an issue for some but in these politically correct times they don't get newspaper or TV time to air their views. Sophia 18:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I live in the US and don't pretend to be well informed on uses outside it, but using Google, I found a lot of references to the "gay agenda" in the UK web[1], France web[2], and Germany web[3]. Of course, some of this content may be mirrors of US sites, but not all. Since "gay agenda" redirects to this article, this is relevant. As far as the phrase "homosexual agenda"- it is found in the UK web[4], France web[5], and Germany web[6] again. Google, though, is terribly efficient at finding obscure references, so this might not be a good measuring stick. DavidBailey 00:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you be terribly offended if we packed some of our favorite men of the cloth in crates and sent them across the pond over to you? Al 19:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't look now but your POV is showing. And a general condemning of men of the cloth is probably unfair as well!--Anon 64 00:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I only want to send the special ones, like Fred Phelps. We seem to have an excess of that variety, so I was only doing the UK a favor. :-) Al 00:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Most of the regular editors have had a chance to comment (or choose not to) since the proposal went up, and there were no objections, so I've swapped the new first paragraph in. Fireplace 01:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but you ignored my references that illustrate that it appears not to be a US-specific term. DavidBailey 02:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Homosexual Agenda - the Other Page

I just read "The Homosexual Agenda" referenced in the other Homosexual Agenda article for probably the third time. This time it was kinda scary. There are many instances in history where people, not yet in power, described such things if they should get to power. They spoke openly of the evil things that they would do and people did not take them seriously. When they got to power they then did exactly what they said that they would do. I am thinking of Nazis for one. But also, Julius Cesar, when he was young, was kidnapped by Pirates. They told him they would ransom him for 20 talents of Gold. He laughed at them and said he was worth 50 Talents. He told them that they should have asked for more. He told them it did not matter how much they got, once released he would hunt them down and crucify every single one of them. They laughed and thought it was a joke. He laughed too. He laughed last. When they got the ransom and delivered them up, he immediately pursued them with a small army and navy, he then turned them over to a local ruler for punishment. When that ruler was appearing to go lax, he attacked that ruler's castle and jail, got the prisoners out and crucified every single one of them, just as he had promised. The promise that they did not take seriously because he was joking. There are many other such examples so when you read that screed it is a bit scary. --Anon 64 00:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny, I just took it as satire. Then again, I have a well-developed sense of humor. It's how I cope with God hating me. :-) Al 00:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The first two times, so did I. Then I read it with a different eye. BTW, if God hates you, you must be a Calvinist. --Anon 64 02:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you go back to your first set of eyes, then. And remember that nothing comes between me and my Calvin. Al 05:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, my optometrist tells me that unlike other people my eyes are improving with age. As for God hating you, I am sorry for you on that account. But thats just how it is. If you are a Calvinist there is nothing you can do about it. --Anon 64 12:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This conversation is highly inappropriate. If you cannot focus on discussion that is about improving the article, please refrain. Wikipedia is not a chatroom, and we have strict rules about personal attacks that this runs afoul of. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Lighten up dude. Look at the archives. We've been working on this page for weeks or months. A short chat in all that time is not like a crash and burn of the Wikipedia Master Plan. And ... as for personal attacks, I did not see any. Oh wait.. you mean the jokes? Al, did I offend you? --Anon 64 19:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Part of having a sense of humor is that I laugh at jokes instead of being offended by them. Al 22:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want to "not offend" eachother that way that's fine, but Wikipedia isn't the place to do it. There are other people you are likely to offend, and Wikipedia's policy against personal attacks is strict for that reason (among others). Driving away editors is damage to the project that Wikipedia doesn't approve of or tolerate. Please reconsider your stance. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suppose for that policy to apply there would have to be a personal attack. Notice for example how much that policy applies to DISAGREEMENTS. Since there wasn't a disagreement and no personal attack, I do not see how your comment applies in that regard. Furthermore, the policy does not mention anything about driving other editors away. Perhaps you should go over and edit the policy so that it is in there now. Also, you might want to remove the warning about wikilawyering. Finally, Wikipedia certainly does tolerate driving editors away. People are driven away every day and wikipedia admin and board do nothing about it. So clearly it is tolerated. Perhaps it is just not desired. Is that what you meant? --by Anon 64

Commenting that God hates someone and that's just how it is certainly qualifies as a personal attack, no matter how much it is said jokingly. It is certainly not anything that has to do with improving the article, which is what article Talk pages are for. I'm sorry you don't feel that this policy is important. Finally, there is a distinction between people being driven away by bad behaviour of other users, and people being driven away because they disagree with the principles of the project and the implications thereof. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to remind you that I said this: Funny, I just took it as satire. Then again, I have a well-developed sense of humor. It's how I cope with God hating me.

Al 22:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Point to you. Perhaps I am being overly sensitive on the personal attack angle, as I noticed this exchange first with Anon 64's "that's how it is" diff via my Watchlist. I still think that this is better off on your own Talk pages: note how easy it was for an uninvolved third party to read this wrong. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's always possible that things read out of context will be misread. Glad we've settled this. Al 23:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

In some cases, it is actively desired. What do you think year-long bans are supposed to do? Al 22:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Loyal opposition

Pollinator and David Bailey have views that are out of touch with consensus and incompatible with NPOV, so they are ignoring the agreements we've come to here and engaging in mass reverts. This is not productive so I encourage them to end their edit war and instead accept the consensus, even if they are merely the loyal opposition. Al 01:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I recently learned that concensus is not exactly the same thing as "Majority Wins". So, I would like to know what Polynator and David Bailey are concerned about. I appreciate everyone listening to me, and I would like to return that favor --Anon 64 02:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about majority rules, but that all opinions are considered. Al, you have a history of dismissing any views that differ from your own. Besides, you stated that you would not revert, and just have. However, it's late, so I'll post my concerns soon. DavidBailey 02:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Some opinions, once considered, must be dismissed. This is particularly the case when these opinions conflict with non-negotiable rules, such as WP:NPOV. The consensus does not have to be unanimous and we have absolutely no obligation to please all participants. Al 05:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you were talking to me but I am not Al. Something he is probably grateful for. --Anon 64 03:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I was talking to Al- notice my indentation was to respond to his, not your response. I hate inserting comments, like I have done to Als below because it breaks the continuity of discussion... oh, and Al, you're wrong. DavidBailey 02:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

24 hours a day. Al 22:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Calling for an end to the revert wars

I am trying very hard to make this article more NPOV and constant reverts by Alienus does not help. Please refer to Wikipedia:Resolving NPOV disputes. Alienus, If you cannot accept that we can work together to make this article both neutral, informative, and of encyclopedic quality, I will refer this page to mediation. Thank you. DavidBailey 02:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

We can work together just fine. The first step is for you to explain your proposed changes here and gain consensus for them. Otherwise, you risk reversion. Al 02:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, you do not own the article. Read WP:OWN. I am making edits that clarify and move the article forward. Your reverts are moving it backwards. If you take issue with specific parts of the article, we can discuss this, or you can make edits directly. I am requesting that you stop reverting my edits. DavidBailey 02:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Not only do I deny owning the article, I deny anyone here owning it, and that includes you. Major changes require consensus. Failure to gain consensus in advance often results in a revert. Al 02:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, you have failed to read policy. Reversion is primarily to combat obvious vandalism, not to enforce what you feel is consensus or NPOV. I am no longer playing this game with you. DavidBailey 02:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Key word: primarily. Let me direct you to the case of Circumcision, where Arbcom admin Jayjg recently did a full revert of the article for reasons other than vandalism. Given the controversial nature of the article, he requested that any major changes (such as moving sections about) be discussed in advance on Talk and gone ahead with only after a consensus. I am following in his esteemed example. Thank you for understanding. Al 03:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

And yet you choose to ignore this standard when you want an edit to get speedily into an article. I'm not buying it. DavidBailey 03:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Key word: major. Minor changes, which are already in the spirit of the consensus, can be safely made without Talking about them in advance. Your views are in such contrast with consensus that few of your changes are minor. Moreover, you to do engage in machine-gun editing, where you save one version after another, quickly adding up to a major change. In short, while this standard is not that hard to understand, it's not safe to oversimplify, either. Al 04:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This apparently is never going to end

This is the second article I have been working on that requires mediation due to Alienus insistence that he is the sole arbiter of what constitutes NPOV and that he has the right to endless reverts to enforce it. (big sigh) DavidBailey 02:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Alienus has now removed one of my comments from the discussion page. This is the second time he has done so. His continued negative attitude toward anyone who disagrees with him, and prior failures for him to work with mediators makes me feel that mediation is not a step that will work here. I am announcing that I will be submitting his name to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. As Alienus doubtless will state, I am certain he feels that he has done nothing wrong. In this case, he should have no worries. If you are interested in participating in this RfC, please discuss it on my user page until the request is formally made at User_talk:DavidBailey#RfC:_Alienus. Thank you. DavidBailey 03:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

As Musical Linguist correctly noted, there is a well-known software bug that sometimes wipes out the bottoms of text boxes. Your failure to assume good faith is distressing. Your RFC is not, because it is baseless and doomed by your own refusal to assume good faith. Al 03:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not you are purposely or accidentally removing my comments, your continued reversions are not contributing to this article. I will proceed with my efforts due to your intolerance, lack of cooperation, and ceaseless claims to exclusivity of judgement regarding NPOV content. DavidBailey 03:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm oozing with tolerance, cooperation and nonexclusive judgement, by I insist that my occasional reverts are for the best. I've explained my criteria above and I stand behind them. Al 04:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15