Talk:American Family Association

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 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)

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)

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 [110] 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 [111]. Charity Navigator then assign charities to those categories and causes; e.g. Category = Public Benefit, Cause = Advocacy and Civil Rights: [112]. 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? [113]. 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)

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 [114]. 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 [115] 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[116]. 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 [117], being removed without comprehensive discussion on further sourcing, and a newly sourced background/context section [118] going missing even last week [119]. 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 [120] 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:[121]. 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[122] 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[123]. The case in the homophobia category:[124](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[125] without consensus[126].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: [127]. 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)