Talk:American Family Association/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

1Archive 2345678

Request for comment

I have posted a request for comment to the Religion and philosophy watch list. Citadel18080 17:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Third party editors: The dispute in question has been debated in Archive 1: Sections 12 ("Systemic Bias") and 14 ("Possible Conpromise on Category Debate"). Citadel18080 19:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Some of the dispute has spilled over onto User talk:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling#AFA and User talk:Christopher Mann McKay#AFA.

The dispute is over whether the AFA should be categorized under Category:Censorship, Category:Discrimination, and Category:Homophobia.

Summary of argument in opposition of removal of categories

Sources in support of Category:Homophobia, Category:Discrimination:

"Homophobia – irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals"[1]
"Discrimination – 3a: the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b: prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment"[2]
Examples of the AFA in favor of discrimination against homosexuals.
  • AFA is opposed to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act[3]
  • AFA is opposed to homosexuals having the same rights as heterosexuals, such as:
    • The right to marriage [4] or marriage like benefits.
    • The right to adopt childeren [5]
  • "Fundamentalists such as the Rev. Donald Wildmon and his American Family Association are seen as homophobic"[6]
  • Quote from the AFA "We want to outlaw public homosexuality"[7]
  • 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."[8]
  • According to the San Francisco government, the AFA sponsored "Truth in Love" ads "promote an agenda which denies basic equal rights for gays and lesbians" (AFA v SF)

Sources in support of Category:Censorship:

"Censorship – 1a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring"[9]
"Censoring – to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable"[10]
While the AFA does not directly censor, they support censorship via boycotts.
Examples of the AFA supporting censorship:
  • Support of the Communications Decency Act, which has been classified as censorship. [11]
  • Support of banning nudity from being developed at photograph development stores, such as Walgreen’s [12]
  • Blockbuster Video decided not to stock films that carried the recently introduced NC-17 rating after pressure from the AFA.[13]
  • 7-Eleven stopped selling selling Playboy and Penthouse magazines after a two year boycott by the AFA [14]
  • Support of censorship of public libraries in Michigan. [15]
  • "The Rev. Donald Wildmon's American Family Association seeks to censor popular culture."[16]
  • "American Family Association Claims Success in Censoring Britney Spears Appearance on 'Will & Grace'"[17]
  • "The American Family Association has taken such an active role in trying to censor the Internet"[18]
  • "Waldenbooks mounted a public relations campaign to fight the censorship efforts by American Family"[19]
  • "AFA actively campaigns against public television, calling for the shutdown of PBS ... The group also weighs in on such public education issues as censoring school curricula and textbooks"[20]

Having these categories are not in violation any policy; however, some editors have claimed using these categories is synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, which is completly false.

Proponents of removing Category:Censorship cite the AFA's web site, which the AFA claims they are not in favor of censorship because they state "censorship, by definition is government imposed."[21] However, censorship has multiple meanings and does not exclusively mean government imposed, so citing how the AFA believes they are not in favor in censorship by the government has nothing to do the AFA inclusion to Category:Censorship, as this category does not exclusively refer to censorship as government imposed.

Proponents of removing Category:Homophobia cite the term "homophobia" is pejorative; however, these concerns should be addressed at WP:CfD, as one can not delete any category they wish for the sole reason they think it is pejorative without consensus from CfD. Homophobia was nominated for CfD; however, the result was an overwhelming keep (CfD log). —Christopher Mann McKayuser talk 23:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Summary of argument in favor of category removal

Much of this debate has revolved around the deduction that the AFA belongs in Category:Discrimination, Category:Censorship, and Category:Homophobia because its actions and activist efforts match the definitions of said actions in the dictionary. I maintain the position that doing so is a direct violation of WP:SYN because the dictionary, while being a reliable and verifiable source, is irrelevant to this discussion because it does not mention the AFA directly. For any Wikipedia editor to conclude that the AFA advocates or practices any of the above on his/her own is most definitely a synthesis of published material and original research. Please read the example Wikipedia provides about the Chicago Manual of Style and notice the following parallels:

  • Both the dictionary (one opposing editor has continually quoted from the American Heritage Dictionary) and the Chicago Manual of Style are widely-read and accepted works in their fields of study, having been in publication for an extended period of time (AHD: almost 40 years and CMoS: 101 years).
  • Both cite a source that does not specifically comment on the dispute (plagiarism and the AFA, respectively).

While there are many sources (mostly news articles) that do describe the AFA as advocating discrimination, censorship, and homophobia, none of these sources is the AFA itself, and in fact, the AFA states on their website, “AFA does not support "censorship." Censorship, by definition is government imposed.” There is a criticism section in this article where these sources can be listed, but in no way do they constitute factual evidence that the AFA does advocate any of these things or belong in any of these categories. WP:CAT, Guideline 8 clearly states, “Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. A list might be a better option.” Self-evident means, “evident without proof or explanation,” and, given the extensiveness of this discussion, there is little doubt that including the AFA in these categories is controversial. One editor who favors the inclusion of the AFA in said categories has stated repeatedly that guidelines can and are ignored because they are not policy. I feel that these guidelines should be followed whenever possible. As I have said before on this talk page, we are not arguing about something obvious, like putting the article on the Earth into the Planets category.

I have offered two compromises to the opposing editors. I recommended that the AFA be placed on lists instead of categories, as the guideline recommends. The lists would be titled "List of organizations believed to be advocating..." or something similar. This was rejected by said editors. I also recommended that, as a temporary solution, the categories be removed and criticism be placed in the approriate section of the article. This, too, was rejected.

To be clear, I am not advocating a complete removal of the material in question. I only ask that accusations of Discrimination, Censorship, and Homophobia advocacy be put into the proper context. That is what the “criticism” section of the article and/or lists are for. Categories, by definition, cannot provide that context. Citadel18080 21:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me add to this summary. The cats suggested are false. They are supported by POV and/or by OR. The AFA is not homophobic, discriminatory, or censorious any more than any individual parent is who does not want his child to view pornography. Editors have been willing to look at evidence that the AFA is actually characterized by these terms but no substantial evidence has been presented despite repeated requests.
Further, the proponents of adding the cats have engaged in threatening and carrying out edit warring, personal attacks on a regular basis, and have even admitting being personally opposed to the subject of the page they are editting. Also, almost all material they do add is from seriously biased sources who, like them, can't stand the AFA. Further, when such material is added, they have added POV to make the page say something even the biased sources didn't say. And it is disheartening to hear them laugh at the need to follow wiki policy and do whatever they want without working with the wiki community. Frankly, given the threats and the actions, at this point I see no solution will ever be acceptable to them short of ensuring the AFA page stays filled with anti-AFA bias. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 22:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Place comments here

Comments on this Talk page from July 25, 2007, appear to be substantive from both sides, for a change, and I recommend they be included by reference into this Request for Comment. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 03:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

As of now, I am satisfied with the cats, and I am happy I raised or reraised the issue. They have been changed or refined to the point where this Request for Comment may no longer be necessary. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 07:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Keith Ellison paragraph

Since there's been some controversy over the mention of Keith Ellison before, I'd like to explain in full why I rewrote it to avoid misunderstanding:

  • Keith Ellison is not definitively the first Muslim in Congress. There is debate over whether John Randolph of Roanoke, who served in Congress in the early 1800s, was a Muslim while he was in office (source).
  • The original version refers to the AFA releasing an article entitled "A first for America..." and a seperate Action Alert. The article in question was the action alert.
  • The mention of Dennis Prager and Michael Savage as "backing" the AFA is misleading. In their Action Alert, the AFA uses Prager's piece to explain the incident, but that is all. I don't know how Michael Savage was involved in this, as he's not mentioned in either of the sources provided. The fact that the two shared the AFA's viewpoint does not constitute a "backing" of the organization.
  • The "contradiction to House procedure" was nonexistent. The AFA Action Alert makes no distinction between the official swearing-in ceremony and the unofficial one in which Ellison used the Koran.
  • The original version states that the AFA demanded that all federal officials take an oath of office on the Bible. The Action Alert refers only to the swearing in of "Representatives and Senators". There are other federal officials who are sworn into office, including the President.
  • The fact that the Koran belonged to Thomas Jefferson at one point is irrelevant to the AFA or their objection. I removed the mention and the source associated with it.
  • I replaced the reference with a link to the AFA's original Action Alert, which I believe was archived on their website when the incident blew over (thus making links to the Action Alert go dead; I found this using a Google search) If it goes dead in the future, another source can be easily found using Google.

Citadel18080 02:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying/cleaning up this paragraph. I made some minor formatting changes, including adding back in the FindArticles article; it doesn’t hurt to have two sources, incase one goes dead or something. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 05:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Why did you switch Ellison back to being "the first Muslim" in Congress without explanation? Again, the matter is historically disputed and not definitively factual, so it should not be included in Wikipedia. If you dispute my reasoning for putting that in, please discuss it here before reverting it. Citadel18080 22:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
There was this source stating Ellison was the first Muslim in Congress; however, you deleted this source from the article when you re-formatted the paragraph. While you might believe John Randolph of Roanoke was the first Muslim elected to Congress because of an AFA article; there is no proof of this. The Washington Post is a reliable source, especially when compared to the AFA site you reference that quotes WallBuilders. Also, note, as pointed out on Wikipedia: Historians reject assertions that Randolph at any time was a Muslim; the only evidence is one letter in 1818 in which he said that as a youth he rooted for the Muslim side when reading about the Crusades.[22] There is no need to remove "the first Muslim" from this article. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 22:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Hold on, there. I never said that I believed that Randolph was a Muslim, I simply said that he might have been a Muslim. The source I included was simply the first place I noticed it. I did, in fact, read the Wikipedia article Conversion of John Randolph of Roanoke before I wrote that in, which stopped me from saying that Ellison was the second Muslim to be elected in Congress. I don't know what you think is wrong with Wall Builder's, as I'd never heard of them prior to reading the AFA article. If you have evidence that it is an unreliable source on the issue of Randolph, please present it. Otherwise, the phrasing "a Muslim" is more approriate. By the way, the AFA article also mentions concerns from the press over Randolph's religion when he was elected, which constitues further evidence.
By the way, what was the purpose of that "converting to Islam" link you provided? Citadel18080 23:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Never mind the link I added; it was a mistake. In addition to the Washington Post, the following organizations also reported Randolph was the first Muslim elected to Congress: CNN[23], MSNBC[24], ABC News[25], Christian Science Monitor [26], New York Times[27], BBC[28], U.S. Department of State[29], Media Matters[30], Fox News[31], CBS News[32], and many more. All of these nation-wide, very large news sources have people employed to check their facts and I doubt all of these organizations just somehow didn’t check their facts on this particular story. I don't believe Wall Builders, some Christian organization that most people have never heard of, over major news sources. Just because some un-known organization thinks something is true does not make it true, especially when there are no historical facts or evidence to support their claims. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 04:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Have you read what WallBuilders said about John Randolph? I just did (source). They do not make the claim that Randolph was the first Muslim in Congress, only that he was possibly the first Muslim in Congress. Like you, they cite countless popular media sources saying that Ellison was the first Muslim in Congress and even state that they may be right. As for the lack of "historical facts or evidence", the WallBuilders article cites a John Randolph biography written in 1818, so I don't think they're lacking for historical evidence. Citadel18080 05:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I changed the wording to "reportedly the first Muslim." Are you agreed to keeping this wording, or do you still want to remove to reference to "first Muslim" entirely? —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 01:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I changed it back to "a Muslim". No offense, but "Reportedly" suggests that the assertion that Ellison was the first Muslim was intentionally wrong, when it may either be right or an unintentional mistake. I really would not be suprised if a bunch of news agencies on deadlines didn't bother to check a biography on an obscure Congressman from two hundred years ago. Citadel18080 02:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
The only reason I put in "reportedly" was because you seem determined to removed "the first Muslim" when it has relevance because the AFA then, after the first Muslim was elected, decided to start their activism against using the Koran to swearing in. IMO, reportedly does not assert something it wrong, but that something is contested or challenged. This provides valuable information to the reader, that is why all the news articles mentioned it.—Christopher Mann McKaytalk 02:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
What exactly are you trying to do? You asked if I still wanted to remove the reference and did not indicate that you had a problem with it, so I put it back in. Now you have a problem with it? If you took issue with the wording "a Muslim" after I linked to the Wall Builders article, then you should have said so. Since you presented no objection, I assumed that you had accepted the premise that Randolph may have been a Muslim. I'm not "determined" to remove that particular piece of information; I simply want to make sure that the article is as factual as possible. This sounds like a misunderstanding. Citadel18080 04:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I should have made my stance more clear, as I do not want you thinking I had no objection. I don't think "the first Muslim" should be removed b/c it is important to let readers know that; therefore, I don't think "a Muslim" should be used. If you don’t like using "the first Muslim" then use "reportedly the first Muslim" because reportedly does not imply that statement is wrong, as you claim. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 22:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
It's not a big deal. "Reportedly" is fine.Citadel18080 18:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Broader concerns of AFA

Hi. I made some changes to include what is obvious about AFA - the fact that they do actually have a lot of potentially valid or even popular concerns about the future of America [33]

I can't say I agree with all they have to say, but the fact is they do hold quite a broad range of concerns. These do need addressing if the article is to encompass the broad facts about AFA. I realize the bulletpoints have been removed into para form before, but they really do need to be filled out with at least a sentence each so that the reader understands what it is about. The AFA isn't only concerned with the HS agenda issues. It may also be an option to follow that broader structure throughout the article until the criticism section. Hal Cross 07:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding more information on the AFA. I previously removed the bullets and put it into a paragraph form because I don't think bullets should be used if the information can read well in paragraph form, which is also what WP:MOS recommends. I agree the bullets need to be filled out, but after they are filled out, IMO, they should be formatted back into paragraph form. I will research some and try to add more to the bullets. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 19:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Regarding this edit: I feel the same way regarding indentions, my point being that encyclopedias are usually written in paragraph form and I believe we should keep Wikipedia articles as encyclopedic as possible by not using bullets or excessive indentions when the information can be merged into paragraph form and read well. However, I don't think it will be good to format into paragraph form until 'Culture and society' and 'Education' are expanded. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 21:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
WP:MOS#Bulleted lists suggests using "indented paragraphs" instead of lists. Since this is a long list, I'm not convinced that it would look good in standard paragraph form. Citadel18080 21:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
IMO, there should be be no list at all, bulleted or indented. I don't think believe a list is warrented. Wikipedia:List guideline#Purpose of lists does not recommend using a list in this type of situation. IMO, explaining the goals of an organization does not have any special reason to be formatted in a list. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 21:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I think its a great overview of the main issues involved in AFA concerns. So as an overview with explaining sentences its fine with bullets. Further explanation can be added below in paragraph form. Which is why I added the larger section "homosexual agenda", which follows the issue, and which was subsequently changed to "homosexuality" by another editor under the unsupported assertion that it was somehow more neutral. Actually its just inconsistent. AFA is actually concerned mainly with the HS agenda [34]. Hal Cross 03:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I don’t mean to fill up this page with my comments, but I want to clarify some. The point I am trying to make is that Wikipedia articles use lists for specific reasons, such as organizing something chronologically, by theme, for annotation, or in 'See also' and 'External links' sections. Anything in a list format should be in list format because of a special purpose and I see no special purpose here. Having un-necessary lists does serve any real purpose, but rather only makes the article look un-encyclopedic and ill-formatted. Most every Class A and Featured Article do not use lists unless they are absolutely necessary; think about it. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 08:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

"Homosexual agenda" section title

Homosexual agenda is inherently POV and controversial; please read the linked article. Homosexuality is a far more neutral term. AUTiger » talk 05:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Its ok AuTiger. I sorted it out. Homosexuality per se is not the issue. It would be POV to say the AFA are about homosexuality or anti homosexuality. They state themselves that they are not anti homosexual. Its the concern of the AFA and what they call the homosexual agenda that really counts. I read the article you helpfully linked up, and I think there are some differences between what AFA considers the agenda, and what is mentioned there. So the title should reflect what the AFA is concerned about in this case. Hal Cross 05:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
CMM, you also changed the title back to homosexuality. You gave no reason. [35]
I'm just thinking about why you prefer the section to be titled with the sweeping statement - Homosexuality. Do you have any particular response to that? I have given my reasons for the more specific and on topic section title above. Hal Cross 08:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
My view on the title is that your revised one was technically correct but aesthetically awful - it was too long, basically. Calling it "Homosexual agenda" is a bit one-sided. It's clear that the AFA has issues with certain aspects of homosexuality, so I think it's fine to have a broad topic heading and then be specific under that. Orpheus 08:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Hal Cross, I changed it back because I think the title is unnecessary. Homosexuality is a one-word title and encompasses a broad array of activism, which is desirable in a section name for this article. It is not "POV to say the AFA are about homosexuality or anti homosexuality" because the title does not suggest the AFA is pro-homosexual, anti-homosexual or any thing like that. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 08:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Interesting CMMK. Could you point me towards the policy recommendations on desirable section naming convention that you seem to be referring to? Hal Cross 12:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm was not referring to any policy or guideline. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 16:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
"Homosexuality" is a state of living, while the "Homosexual Agenda" is an organized advocacy campaign. While it is opposed to both, the AFA's activism activities focus on the latter. I recommend using "Opposition to 'Homosexual Agenda'" or even simply "Homosexual Agenda" as the title for this section. Either way, if the words "Homosexual Agenda" are in quotes, it will be clear that it is the AFA's description, and not an editor attempting to add POV. Citadel18080 22:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to using "Homosexuality", "Homosexual Agenda", or "Opposition to 'Homosexual Agenda'" for the section title. I just think "AFA's opposition to what they call the homosexual agenda" should not be used as the section title, as it can be shortened. First I thought “Homosexualy” should be used instead of “Homosexual Agenda” because it is a broad category that can also encompass not only the Homosexual Agenda, but also ex-gay activism; however, there is no ex-gay activism currently referenced in this section, so as long as there is only activism surrounding what the AFA views as the Homosexual Agenda, then I’m not opposed to changing the title. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 23:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Great at last we're getting through. I agree my line is technically correct. Thats the main point. There is no rule for brief or single word section titles. Being descriptive is important in this case as it is specific. The biggest problem with this article is the fact that it was made to look like AFA is totally about anti-homosexuality. Firstly, the court is still out on that matter and its going to be an argument as long as people deny it. The article needs to be made far more specific to each of the broad concerns and issues in AFA. I hope people notice that I'm not here snipping away at critical information. I am interested in presenting it properly though and as an encyclopedic broad vista rather than a blinkered attack article. I noticed yesterday what seems to me to be vandalism [36]I'm sure a broadly presented article will not be easy to maintain. But thats the job at hand. Hal Cross 00:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) WP:MOS says, regarding section headings, "the wording tends to be short (more than 10 words may defeat the purpose);". Regarding the heading "Homosexuality", I'm curious - why do you assume that a section title of "Homosexuality" actually says "anti-homosexuality"? Please correct me if I've mischaracterised your position. It seems to apply to the categories as well. Homosexuality, censorship, discrimination and so on are neutral terms. They don't imply that the organisation takes a position for or against. That's left to the reader to decide after reading all points of view, presented in the article. Orpheus 03:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say Homosexuality means anti homosexuality. I do say that having homosexuality as a title is part of the POV pushing that has had this article held hostage for far too long. The article should mention what AFA says it is concerned with, and then there is room for any criticism you wish to add. But first it should be clear what AFA states. One concern is the HS agenda. That is why it should be stated as such. You placing homosexuality as a title basically takes the specific statements in the text (regarding HS agenda) blown out of proportion to include everything to do with homosexuality. Its an extremely bad way to edit. Its misleading. It looks exactly like the sort of POV pushing that this article could do without. I'll assume good faith though and ask you again: Why do you continually persist in having such a sweeping title for this specific issue? Hal Cross 04:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The short reason is that "Homosexual agenda" is a loaded term. Homosexuality is a neutral one, and neutral terms are good for section titles. It's not misleading in any way. To me, seeing a "Homosexuality" section in the article says that the AFA is concerned with one or more things related, in some way, to homosexuality. The text of the article then makes it clear what that is. I don't think it's POV to say that the AFA is involved in activism that has something to do with homosexuality. Orpheus 05:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
We seem to be way past that issue Orpheus. Why are you bringing it up? The main point is to represent the view of AFA correctly. The whole section is about AFA's opposition to what they call the homosexual agenda. As such that is the title. Its really very simple. I don't think anybody is interested in presenting the other term "homosexual agenda" even though it is far more specific than "homosexuality". The section is specific to what AFA call the HS agenda and thats "all about it", quoting Dickens. I will leave your motivations to the opinions of other editors. Hal Cross 11:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
What's wrong with the broader, non-specific term? It's a section heading, not the section itself. The lengthy section title full of qualifiers is stylistically undesirable. I'm not sure exactly what you mean regarding my motivations. Perhaps you could clarify? Orpheus 11:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
In cooperation with all views here I have made the section title shorter to 5 words only. Opposition to the "homosexual agenda". With the brevity requirement totally satisfied, the title is now brief, technically correct, specific and stylistically correct. Now, I will clarify what I mean by your motivations. I will leave your motivations to other editors. Other editors may make decisions about what you have been trying to do. I will leave it up to them. Hal Cross 01:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Orpheus, I agree with your arguments and see nothing wrong with using "Homosexuality", but multiple persons devoted to changing it want it changed and I don't care to debate or oppose it. I see neither "Homosexuality" nor "Homosexual Agenda" as POV pushing because the title is not implying the AFA is in favor or opposed to the topic. I prefer to use "Homosexuality" but then again, others prefer otherwise and I think the best thing is to compromise. However, regarding the recent edit[37]: after thinking about it, I strongly disagree with using "Opposition to 'Homosexual Agenda'" instead of the more simple "Homosexual Agenda", if it determined to change the name of this section. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 02:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm happy with the "quoted" version. It shows that the term is not necessarily accepted as moot, but it is the term that the AFA use. I've changed it to "The homosexual agenda" to reinforce that. Orpheus 05:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Former personnel

The former leader of the AFA California affiliate, Scott Lively, is a co-author of The Pink Swastika, a book which states that many leaders in the German Nazi regime, including Hitler himself, were homosexual and state that eight of the top ten serial killers in the US were homosexuals.[1][2]

I moved this here for discussion. I also invited FeloniousMonk for more input. I have read through the prior discussion with LAEC and FM and there are other issues to discuss here. For example, this isn't a criticism, so it seems to be irrelevant to that section. Its also outside the scope of AFA. Its not an AFA publication, its not a belief of the AFA, and its a co-written piece of work. Thats why it seems to be so outside the relevance of this article. Feel free to discuss. Hal Cross 05:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm new to this discussion so pardon me if I don't have a full grasp of the background of this particular article and its editing history. Without additional context, the above statement does seem out of place in this article. One of the cited articles doesn't even mention the AFA in connection with this book or its authors and the other only makes a passing mention of the California branch of the AFA. Without additional references that make explicit the connection between this book and the AFA, I'm afraid this material simply doesn't belong in this article. For us as Wikipedia editors to implicitly suggest or explicitly link these topics without stronger supporting references is original research at best and POV at worst. --ElKevbo 05:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Welcome ElKevbo. Hal Cross 06:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
There's also this article as a potential source. I think the book is relevant as the publically stated opinion of a senior AFA figure - thoughts? Orpheus 05:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Orpheus. The link is further evidence that the pink swastika book is just a passing mention. Its not an encyclopedic addition and in co-writing that book, the author is unassociated with AFA, the other co-author is also unassociated. Hal Cross 06:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC) P.S On reflection I think the para could even be classed as tendentious editing [38]. Hal Cross 06:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I remember discussing the mention of Lively some time ago. I still think that, if anything, this mention should be on a seperate article for either Lively or AFA California. The AFA is a big enough organization to warrant seperate articles for its affiliates. For example, the article on the United States does not mention scandals related to state governors. Citadel18080 17:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't that long ago. I would strongly support moving the reference to an American Family Association of California page, if such an article existed - but it doesn't yet. Also, the AFA is a bit more narrowly focused than the United States, so things like this carry proportionally more weight. Orpheus 18:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't find enough info on AFA California to warrant a seperate article, so I created a List of American Family Association state affiliates and moved the Lively information there.Citadel18080 18:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. Don't forget to stick a stub template in there if you're not planning to expand it yourself (I'm not sure if you are or not, so I won't add one myself). Orpheus 19:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to add some more information, but will probably include a stub template anyway. Citadel18080 22:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Good call, Citadel. Its nice to see things are starting to get into more appropriate weighting and perspective. Hal Cross 05:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Categories, yet again

OK, looks like this has cropped up again. See the summary of arguments above. See the large and free-ranging discussion on the archive page. Weigh in with new ideas here. The current status, as I see it, is that there's no consensus either way and we should be stepping through WP:DR and attempting to resolve the content dispute. Orpheus 04:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Orpheus, I have no problem at all with you applying for any kind of dispute resolution. You want the categories in the article. Others see the categories as controversial and have supplied plenty of evidence to say they are controversial. There is nothing wrong with such editors removing the categories whenever they see fit. By all means continue with your application for dispute resolution. Hal Cross 04:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi again Orpheus. In your edit summary, you stated that it has been handled already [39]. Also, the summary you refer to seems to be quite biased and really doesn't add anything useful. To my mind, this isn't a matter for consensus at all. In fact, its simply a matter of following recommendations. They state that "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." It is definitely not self evident. Its also certainly controversial both on the editor level and the society level. All evidence points to controversy. You have never managed to convince anyone else otherwise. The cats can be removed quite constructively at any time. Hal Cross 09:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Why doesn't this article belong in the Censorship, Discrimination and Homophobia categories? Before you answer, look at the other articles in the categories. Remember that the categories aren't called "Organisations that censor" or "People who discriminate". They are blanket, neutral terms. Including this article in those categories simply indicates that the AFA is involved in the wider debate over censorship etc. I think that's uncontroversial. What are your thoughts on that? Orpheus 10:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Let's assume for the sake of argument that the AFA opposes allowing children access to sexually inappropriate information. Anyone who opposes allowing children access to sexually inappropriate information is not in any way, shape, or form doing anything in any way related to censorship. Legally, in the eyes of the law, such as the US Supreme Court case of US v. ALA, censorship is legally and factually impossible in such a circumstance: "The interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors is legitimate, and even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear to agree." Unless one wants to argue the US Supreme Court are censors themselves, that is. True, organizations that support allowing children access to sexually inappropriate information or even promote such access will cry censorship when anyone tries to do the exact opposite, but that still does not make it censorship: "The ... elites have convinced themselves that they are taking a stand against cultural tyranny. .... [T]he reality is that it is those who cry 'Censorship!' the loudest who are the ones trying to stifle speech and force their moral world-view on others." That was by Dan Gerstein, an independent consultant and former communications director for Joe Lieberman and a senior strategist for his presidential campaign.
In other words, what the AFA is doing that is claimed to be related to censorship is not in any way related to censorship, except to a select few trying to tar the AFA as a censor in an effort to "force their moral world-view on others." In the limited context of Wikipedia, this is called a soapbox. In a further limitation to this specific page, that is what has been going on here for a long time without anyone yet being able to stop the soapbox efforts to tar and feather the AFA.
The arguments regarding discrimination and homophobia follow in a similar vein. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 12:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
But that *is* censorship, according to the definition of the term. It may very well be justified. There may be a legitimate and even compelling reason to do it, but it doesn't change the fact that it is censorship. You are putting the pejorative meaning onto the term. I consider censorship to be a neutral, descriptive word, not an insult or an accusation. Orpheus 13:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey, let me just say as a side note that I just got a chuckle out of you using my name in your post. I like my name, but Can't sleep, clown will eat me has the funniest name I've seen so far. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 14:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
No, it is not censorship. That wiki page says, "Censorship is defined as the removal and withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body." When everyone in the world keeps children from viewing sexually inappropriate material, except those few opposing that such as the American Library Association, then it is incorrect to say "a controlling group or body" is involved. No. No "controlling group or body" is preventing children from inappropriate sexual information, rather, that's what everyone the entire world over does. It is simply a POV argument, and a way out POV no less, to claim keeping children from sexually inappropriate material "*is* censorship, according to the definition of the term." --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 14:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The controlling body is the government, in the form of the FCC. The information is profanity and nudity. The public are TV viewers. The AFA is vocal in calling for the removal and witholding of that information from that sector of the public by that controlling body. Incidentally, when and why did children come into this discussion? Not that it matters - it's still censorship, no matter what the reasoning (and again, I emphasise that while wearing my Wikipedia editor hat I take no stance on whether it is justified or not). Even if everyone does do it, and around the world that's simply not true, it's still censorship. Orpheus 14:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
"The information is profanity and nudity." Thanks for admitting that. What was I saying about sexually inappropriate information for children? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 14:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see the relevance. It doesn't matter what the information is, it's the fact that the AFA wants the government to remove or withold it from the public that puts this article in the censorship category. Orpheus 14:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Orpheus, the difference here is that you say you think the cats are uncontroversial. You have stated so many times and above in this section. You have also reverted the cats into the article as soon as they are removed. However, many other editors have pointed out the controversy that is literally jumping up and down on the article, and is clear in the literature. Other editors have also allowed the cats to remain for the sake of reasonable discussion, where as you have not followed that constructive line. The censorship issue is controversial because there is a clear controversy in the literature. The same with the other categories. Thus that is why many editors have removed them from the article so many times. You are acting on what you think. Those removing the cats are acting on information that is clear in the literature. Hal Cross 14:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
First off, I'm not the only one who thinks the categories belong in the article. Secondly, you haven't yet contributed to the reasonable discussion, and thirdly I would like to see a source from the literature that says that what the AFA is advocating is not censorship. Orpheus 14:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
And when did you stop beating your wife? (A rhetorical question analogous to the request for a source showing the AFA in not doing what the POV-pushers say it is doing.) --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 14:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Orpheus, would you care to rephrase what you wrote? None of it is relevant, neither does it take into account wiki policy. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 14:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it's reasonable to ask for evidence if "The censorship issue is controversial because there is a clear controversy in the literature" is used as an argument. Orpheus 14:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes OK Orpheus, it is not only you who is pushing the same line. You and another editor seem to be extremely quick to jump to restore the cats as soon as they are removed, and vaguely refer to the talkpage in your edit summaries as if its all been dealt with. Both of you tend not to make any attempt at discussion before restoring them. If you don't think I have made any contribution here, would you like me to go? I have written quite a lot. Do you think all I have written here has been unconstructive? Here is one pretty clear link that shows there is a clear controversy [40]. Hal Cross 14:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I welcome your contribution, Hal, but you need to discuss your position rather than just saying, effectively, "the debate is over because policy". The AFA saying that they are anti-censorship is not a particularly reliable source in this case - after all, they would, wouldn't they. Orpheus 14:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
A denial that AFA's suggestions are censorship: [41]Orr-Cahall stated "if you think about this for a long time, as we did, this is not censorship; in fact, this is the full artistic freedom which we all support". It is clearly controversial that AFA is about censorship. Hal Cross 15:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The director of a gallery who has just acquiesced to protect the gallery funding from government cuts is hardly a reliable source on the matter. Furthermore, that article clearly shows that the AFA is involved in the censorship debate in some way - otherwise, why would it come up? Orpheus 15:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I repeat my earlier argument - look at the other articles in the category. What makes you think that the AFA doesn't belong with them? Orpheus 15:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Orpheus, thats not a policy or a recommendation. It would be wrong to make such a distraction. The cat definitely needs work. Right now we can work on it by adhering to the general category recommendations. I.E. if someone thinks the cat applies, they can be bold and add it to the article, then if there is an objection, it can get reverted, then discussed. You (and other) seem to be doing things all the wrong way round (for months). Recommendations say that a cat should not apply where there is a controversy. You have not in any way convinced anybody by referring to other articles that others may indeed want to attack. As most editors know there is a serious problem with soapboxing on WP. It is resolved through discussion and referring to the recommendations, rather than pointing at the others who may also be ignoring the recommendations. Hal Cross 15:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Hal, the point of a category is to link articles that are on the same theme. I'm not on a soap box here. I don't live in America, the AFA has no effect on my life whatsoever - I have no vested interest in this beyond a desire to make Wikipedia a useful resource of information. It's possible to stir up a controversy against every category in this article, as I've said before. I can find articles that say that the AFA is perverting Christian teachings and so it's controversial to put them in the Christianity category. At what point do you stop, and how do you decide that point? By building consensus, and there's no consensus here. There's a few people on each side, and the vast majority of Wikipedia seems to not care one way or another. Orpheus 16:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
This is an example of how Orpheus argues and why it is so frustrating. He is repeating his earlier argument and asking that it be reconsidered, but it is irrelevant. What other articles do has little bearing on this article, per wiki policy. Further, and here is the key to Orpheus's style of argument, not only does he press on with irrelevancies, but he totally and completely fails to address the real, outstanding issues. Earlier I said, "It is simply a POV argument, and a way out POV no less, to claim keeping children from sexually inappropriate material '*is* censorship, according to the definition of the term,'" quoting Orpheus him/herself. Has an answer appeared anywhere? No. No answer. No answer now, no answer in the future, no answer ever. This is the precise reason why this matter never closes -- there is never an answer, never a finalization. Never. On and on it goes, month after month of dancing around the issues raising irrelevancies and ignoring essential matters. This is really a never ending process that will never end. I'm am going to remove those cats again right now precisely because of the intentional, neverending nature of the style of argument used to support the calumny against the AFA. I urge all other editors to continue to keep the cats out unless and until issues raised are directly addressed without side issues being raised, like proving a negative, to further delay resolution of this near half year long dispute. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 15:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I have answered that already. It's entirely irrelevant to bring up children in this context, but if you insist, if the government is keeping anybody from any material, it is censorship. I don't see what age has to do with it. As I said, that's not necessarily an undesirable thing, but it is unquestionably censorship. The question is, does the AFA article belong anywhere in the spectrum of censorship covered by the category, and if they advocate it then they do. Some censorship is good. Why are you so keen not to have the AFA associated with the term?
I'd like to point out that I've refrained from calling your arguments POV, and I would appreciate the same courtesy. You haven't built a consensus to remove the categories and you haven't made a convincing argument to take them out. Orpheus 16:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Orpheus, you are not getting it, or you are purposely not getting it, and you are continuing the same style of argument: deflection. Keeping inappropriate material away from children is not censorship. Period. That is not POV. That is fact. Everyone in the entire world, without having to be told, without any government intervention, keeps inappropriate material away from children. The AFA is arguing to keep inappropriate material away from children, by your own admission. That has absolutely nothing to do with censorship. It is just a given, like breathing air is a given. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 16:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I am asked by Orpheus, "Why are you so keen not to have the AFA associated with the term?" Simple. Keeping children from sexually inappropriate material is not censorship, the AFA is attempting to keep children from sexually inappropriate material. Doing so is not censorship. It is factually false to claim, as you do, that keeping children from inappropriate sexual material is censorship. Therefore, based on these facts, censorship is not an issue. Therefore, based on wiki policy, it does not belong on the page.
I am not interested in the AFA one way of another. If they were for censorship, I would be against that. But that is irrelevant. Again, I am forced to address another irrelevant issue by you. It is irrelevant about me and the AFA. The key here is the facts and wiki policy. And people not yet getting engaged does not mean I am not convincing anyone, neither is that relevant either. Again, you deflect. Stick to the issues: wiki policy, the facts, the application of the facts to the wiki pages via the wiki policy. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 16:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it is POV. You have the point of view that the government restricting material is only censorship if - what? What's the condition for it to be censorship? Saying that it's a given doesn't make it any more true - it's an opinion, which you're entitled to, but it's not the absolute truth.
"Everyone in the entire world, without having to be told, without any government intervention, keeps inappropriate material away from children." - sure, but a) the definition of inappropriate varies wildly around the entire world, and b) "without any government intervention" - the AFA is advocating government intervention. That's what puts them under the "censorship debate" umbrella.
You are also ignoring the fact that the AFA doesn't just advocate to keep some material away from children, they advocate to keep it away from everybody. See, for example, the large number of links I posted which are now in the archive. Orpheus 16:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
This is so obviously a controversy. It is self evident that its a controversy. Thus the cats are obviously inappropriate. Hal Cross 16:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
An argument is not necessarily a controversy. One simple question - do you really think that the American Family Association has nothing whatsoever to do with the current debate (in society at large) over censorship? Orpheus 16:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Orpheus. You are creating a lot of bother and making editors angry by inferring they are making no contribution, by reverting without attempting extra discussion, and you have been doing it month after month. Wikipedia has provided another way for you to say the AFA is about censorship, homophobia, and whatever. Its called a list. Go ahead and add it to whatever list you want. Just please stop jamming up this article by insisting that what you think is more important than the category recommendations. The AFA has nothing to add to the reader's understanding of homophobia or censorship. There are plenty of other articles that are actually edifying in that line on the article. The AFA doesn't happen to be one of those. The recommendations give us every reason to remove the categories. Just take your arguments over to the lists and at least stop the disruption here. Other editors are clearly getting sick of it. Hal Cross 16:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You are deflecting again, but looking at "they advocate to keep it away from everybody," I suppose you mean in the effort to keep children from seeing sexually inappropriate material that is broadcast on national television, some adults will be affected as well. That is not the same thing as advocating censorship of adults. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 16:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent)You are in error when you state that "it is a fact" that "Keeping inappropriate material away from children is not censorship". It is censorship with a specific focus, namely, to keep material considered inappropriate away from children. That this is common practice in many cultures around the world and throughout history does not somehow make it not censorship. See this notice on Educause connect; the essay User:Marskell/Think of the Children; I am sure there are many others. Censorship "for the children" is still censorship. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Adding, the ALA uses a very narrow and specific "technical" definition of censorship: "For the ALA, technically censorship means the "The Removal of material from open access by government authority." The ALA also distinguishes various levels of incidents in respect to materials in a library which may or may not lead to censorship: Inquiry, Expression of Concern, Complaint, Attack, and Censorship." As the ALA only defines "censorship" as "censorship by the government" and not as the legal or dictionary or encyclopedic definition, this may be the cause of this edit war/argument. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. The very fact that this current dispute is so large and has so many sources shows that the AFA is at least in some way involved in the social discussion about what degree of censorship is acceptable. That is, to me, uncontroversial and self evident, and therefore I think the category should go back into the article. A similar argument can be made for the other removed cats. Orpheus 17:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the possible explanation KC. My own view (and the view of other editors here) is that it is definitely controversial though and as such should not be a category. I'm going back to the actual reasons that clause is in the recommendations. If it is controversial then it really adds nothing to the category by adding AFA. AFA doesn't seem to have any particular newfangled method of creating censorship. There is nothing really edifying about AFA in censorship terms. There may be other interesting and useful articles in the cat such as propaganda and so on. So both from a usefulness perspective and the fact that there is a clear controversy, the cat can be removed. And even for the simple pragmatic reason of keeping disruptive instant reversions away, the list option has been given and simply dismissed. I'm all for getting this article into shape, but I don't think its going to happen when folk so obviously ignore the obvious fact that certain cats are controversial. Hal Cross 16:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
My point is that your controversy is based on a narrow definition of censorship, whereas the category is based on a much wider definition. That's the source of my two comments, 1) look at the other articles there, and 2) the AFA is in some way involved in the societal debate regarding appropriate levels of censorship. Orpheus 17:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
(after EC) WP:IDON'TLIKEIT is not an argument for removing a cat. There have been multiple sources to support the censorship cat; all I see in your posts is "I don't want the cat, therefore there is disagreement, therefore it is controversial, therefore it must be removed". I apologise if that seems oversimplified; but try to look at it as I am, an outsider to this debate. I see no coherent arguments at all from the "remove the cat" side of the "debate". Perhaps you could attempt to state your position more clearly? KillerChihuahua?!? 17:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Thats not my view KC. I mean there is a controversy in the literature. The cats do not have annotations so they are vague. I think there is probably a bit of a problem with categories in general and I sympathize if you really want the categories in. But just looking at the recommendations it seems that removing the categories is correct, plus it will likely lead to reduced conflict here. As long as there is literature saying No, AFA is not about censorship, or similar, then there is controversy. AFA admit to promoting responsibility. If there is a cat for responsibility or similar then that could also apply, unless someone states, no they are not! I have no problem with the list recommendation. It would resolve a great many headaches on this article. Hal Cross 17:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
You can add annotations to the categories if you like. Just edit the category page. It's quite common for them to have a brief description of what the category is about. My reason for preferring categories to lists is that categories are better for exploratory browsing and links that don't fit into a neat hierachy. It's useful to be able to see a range of articles spanning all points of view on the censorship debate, and the category provides that. It includes pro and anti censorship advocates, organisations that want the definition of censorship altered either more strictly or more loosely, government bodies that actually censor things and interested parties with something to contribute. That's a valuable resource for the Wikipedia reader, and a list doesn't do the job as well. Orpheus 17:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
(After EC, again) It sounds as though you (Hal) are advocating a sympathetic point of view rather than a neutral point of view, as well as possibly misunderstanding how categories are used on Wikipedia. If we define any person or organization only as they define themselves, we are ignoring NPOV in favor of sympathetic POV. We might as well simply paste their brochures up and have done. Regarding how categories are used on Wikipedia, for example, the Institute for the Study of Academic Racism is in the Racism cat; not because they advocate racism, nor because they are racists, but because they are involved in the overall category as an institute which studies racism. In this regard the AFA is clearly involved in censorship, as they advocate censorship of library content. We are here using the widely accepted dictionary, encyclopedia, and legal definition as opposed to the narrow "govt. only" definition asserted by the ALA and the AFA as the only definition of "censorship" which applies. It seems to me that you must address both the definition, which IMO would require the category to be renamed "Cat:Government censorship", or narrow the way Wikipedia uses categories. As the category censorship already contains a subcategory Category:Censorship by country, it is clear the Category:Censorship is not intended to imply government censorship only. This leaves narrowing the way categories are used on Wikipedia, which is outside of the scope of this talk page SFAICT. Is there another possible objection which I am missing, which you have not specified? KillerChihuahua?!? 17:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Finally. After many months, some people are finally talking about the issues. Thank goodnees. Thank you, KC, in particular.
Now KC said, "In this regard the AFA is clearly involved in censorship, as they advocate censorship of library content." KC, the American Library Association calls it censorship, but the US Supreme Court in US v. ALA and in Bd. of Educ v. Pico says the exact opposite. So legally (and in fact), keeping children from inappropriate material is not censorship. Censorship goes towards ideas and the control of those ideas. Inappropriate sexual material has nothing to do with ideas. And that is precisely why the Court has ruled as it has. The ALA's opposition to the Court, even when being the losing party in one of those cases, does not mean we throw out the law and follow the ALA. If the AFA is opposing sexually inappropriate books in public libraries being made available to children, it is, as a matter of law, not engaged in censorship. On the other hand, if it opposing Al Gore's book on the environment, that would be censorship depending on certain other factors not needed to discuss now. Keeping children from sexually inappropriate material is simply not censorship. The AFA, in attempting to keep children from sexually inappropriate material, is not attempting censorship if censorship is not possible in the first place under those circumstances according to the law, the ALA's highly politicized view notwithstanding. Does this help clarify things? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 17:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
It clarifies that you are using one specific definition of censorship, which does not include "Keeping children from sexually inappropriate material". This is not established as the only definition of the word "censorship", nor is it the definition given by dictionaries, encyclopedias, nor even legally according to Definitions of Censorship on the PBS site. It appears you are arguing for a specific definition of censorship to be used; please state that definition and your reasoning for Wikipedia adhering to that definition. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Adding: It appears that you (LEAC) are arguing for a specific legal defnition of censorship (based on your use of court cases). Consider the following: Censorship is a word of many meanings. In its broadest sense it refers to suppression of information, ideas, or artistic expression by anyone, whether government officials, church authorities, private pressure groups, or speakers, writers, and artists themselves. It may take place at any point in time, whether before an utterance occurs, prior to its widespread circulation, or by punishment of communicators after dissemination of their messages, so as to deter others from like expression. In its narrower, more legalistic sense, censorship means only the prevention by official government action of the circulation of messages already produced. Thus writers who "censor" themselves before putting words on paper, for fear of failing to sell their work, are not engaging in censorship in this narrower sense, nor are those who boycott sponsors of disliked television shows. --Academic American Encyclopedia Also consider that Wikipedia has a sub-cat, Category:Censorship by country, which would be where articles which involve "legal" censorship, or censorship by the government, to be placed. No one is arguing (at least, I have seen no arguments) for this article to be placed within Category:Censorship by country. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay. I am using that wording because that it what the AFA is doing, so far as I can see. I do not see them opposing anything for any reason other than it being inappropriate sexual material being displayed or otherwise made available to children. That is what the AFA is doing, unless there is evidence otherwise, so that is why I am addressing my comments to that issue. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 18:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I see your point, KC, about the broad definition of censorship. Even under that definition, keeping children from sexually inappropriate information for children is not within the bounds of even that broad definition. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 18:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Oops, I meant to say inappropriate sexual material, not inappropriate sexual information. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 18:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Why isn't it within that definition? There's no age of majority mentioned in the definition of censorship. Orpheus 18:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The point is what the AFA is doing, not the entire panoply of potential censorship activities. What the AFA is doing is very specific; it is designed to protect children from sexually inappropriate information, which is not even within the broad definition KC brought to the fore. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 18:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

(od) Why is that not within any definition of censorship? Orpheus 18:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, AFA does not only "protect" children from sexual material... They also advocate removing sexually explicit material, such as movies or magazines, made available to adults and have even boycotted Walgreens for developing nude photographs of adults taken by adults; this is clearly not an issue of censoring material from children, but is censoring material from the general public. Also, your claim that restricting sexually explicit materials from minors is not considered censorship is not true; it is considered censorship and that fact alone warrants the inclusion of the censorship category. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 18:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Orpheus and Christopher Mann McKay, the way I see it, practically anything can be categorized under any category using broad definitions. Categories like "censorship" can be applied to hundreds, if not thousands, of articles. IMO, articles should only be categorized under subjective descriptors if there is a general acceptance of relevance by the public. For example, time has made it "self-evident and uncontroversial" that the Spanish Inquisition was linked to censorship, and that the Jim Crow laws advocated discrimination. The AFA, however, is an active political organization, and no one can deny that many of its actions have been controversial. That's reason enough to refrain from categorizing it in subjective terms. Citadel18080 18:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
KillerChihuahua, you implied that the editors who are advocating the removal of the categories are supporting the POV of the AFA. Are you suggesting that the opposing POV (i.e. that the AFA does advocate censorship, etc.) is automatically entitled to a category? Look at the article for George W. Bush. You'll notice that it is not categorized under "Idiots" even though many prominent publications, politicians, and political analyists have accused him of being one. To say that it would be sympathetic POV to exclude him from this category (if it existed) would hardly be in the spirit of Wikipedia. The same reasoning applies to this article. Citadel18080 18:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe I see part (maybe the root?) of the problem; you (and others) are erroneously translating the name of the Censorship category as Organizations which advocate censorship when the proper interpretation is Topics of, related to, or associated with, censorship. If you look over the articles in Category:Censorship, you will find Censorship (concept), Index on Censorship (anti-), Project Censored (research), List of banned books (targets), Banned films (targets), Obscenity (topic), Corporate censorship (concept), Censorship by religion (concept) and in subcats, Content-control software, Child Online Protection Act (law), Communications Decency Act (law), R. v. Glad Day Bookshops Inc. (legal case), Self-censorship (concept). QED, the category itself is neutral and should not reasonably be controversial.
Regarding the inclusion of the AFA in the category, the AFA is associated with various subjects in the category, in fact, some of the ones I mention above. Beyond that, a Google test also indicates AFA is associated with censorship. Searching for "American Family Association" censorship results in 84,600 EN pages; further, performing the same search at Google Books for the presumably more rigorous requirements of printed works results in 165 books where the terms occur near each other. AUTiger » talk 22:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
CMM brings up cases of supposed censorship not involving children. If that is the case, and if it can be shown in a wikiworthy fashoin, then that is a horse of a different color. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 23:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The pragmatic, and I believe technically correct solution, is to move to lists. Firstly it is not sympathetic to remove the cats. It is neutral. There are those who say its to do with censorship and those who say AFA has nothing to do with censorship, it is something else - advocacy, responsibility etc. Its controversial and can be removed. There are also those readers wanting to know about censorship, eg, writing a term paper about it. Under the cat they can search the most relevant information, e.g. book burning, office of censorship, banned movies, chilling effect and so on. AFA are not going to help anyone in this regard. But if its part of a list of articles who some controversially say involve censorship/don't involve censorship then it works ok. Thats the way it should be organized. The reader benefits, and we can reduce the conflict on this and perhaps even on other controversial articles. Hal Cross 01:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Following on from Citadel's comment, I just made a five minute search of several random subjects in relation to censorship on Google: Tolkien, Harry potter, Kylie minogue, Condom, Hemingway, Buddhism. They all seem to be related to censorship. Do we battle for months to keep the cats on those articles? Is removing the cats sympathetic in these cases? Really, the cats are totally removable in all these cases. If anyone has a problem with that, then perhaps they should just try to change the rules on categorization rather than maintain conflicts downstream. Hal Cross 01:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Hal Cross, you have my complete agreement. AUTiger, while it is true that Category:censorship does not necessarily mean "Organizations that advocate censorship" to us editors, the average Internet user who has little need to know about Wikipedia's editing guidelines will not make this distinction. When I Google "American Family Association" this article is the third result on the list, meaning that pretty much anyone looking for some general info on the AFA will come here. They will see the words "Censorship", "Discrimination", and "Homophobia" and assume that it is a fact that the AFA advocates them. In order to be as factualy precise and neutral as possible, lists should be used instead of categorization. I am more than willing to accept this as a compromise, and will even start the lists myself if all parties involved agree to it. Citadel18080 03:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
They will see the words "Censorship", "Discrimination", and "Homophobia" and assume that it is a fact that the AFA advocates them. -- If people assume this, they are correct, as it is a fact the AFA advocates censorship and discrimination. What are you trying to say here; are you claiming the AFA does not advocates these things? —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 03:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
CMMK. I think its accurate to state that you feel the AFA is about censorship. Some others here may say its not about censorship. Thats a controversy. The literature holds the same controversy. Thus, at the risk of sounding repetitive, the cats can be removed. If you want to add anything more, you can do it far better on a list than on a category. The categorization recommendations have given you that as an option. In the light of the above search and realistic impracticality of having the cats think there is no option but to have them removed. You do have an option however. You can choose to or not to add the information to a list with whatever annotation is appropriate. Also, I noticed that rather than discuss until resolved you have ignored the suggestion to go through the bold-revert-discuss cycle [42]. I believe that sort of refusal to accept reflects badly on your already poor edit/revert activities. Hal Cross 04:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
BRD is not policy and many articles don't follow it. Also, why would I care if my refusal to remove the cats "reflects badly on [my] already poor edit/revert activities"? I stand-up for what I believe and I don't care what some Wikipedia editors think about my editing, which I personally don’t classify as "poor." Why would I care? I don’t want to be an admin or run or any Wiki-related positions, and I am never going to meet Wiki editors in real-life… —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 04:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi CMMK. It matters because other editors here have consistently given you time and opportunity to discuss, whereas you seem to be extremely keen on jamming that process by adding information to the article when the burden of proof is upon you to provide information here. BRD is an extremely good idea and I suggest it be used here more often, and respected, so that discussion can be properly conducted. I think it wrong for you to be so against BRD. Rapid and dismissive reversion is bad for all. Your own beliefs are not the priority here. I see you have been standing up for them for a long time. If you would please stop trigger reacting on your beliefs for a while and start working with WP recommendations, then you would not risk a bad reputation. Thank you. Hal Cross 06:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

(od) LAEC, here are four quick examples:

  • AFA claims credit for causing 7-11 stores to cease distribution of adult magazines Playboy and Penthouse which are constitutionally protected free speech and were distributed(sold) only to adults; they launched a similar attempt to prevent sales at Waldenbooks.[43]
  • AFA orchestrated the preemptive censorship of a 2004 Veteran's Day broadcast of Saving Private Ryan by local stations covering 1/3 of the US population by threatening them with FCC complaints claiming 4000+ members would use AFA provided form-letters.[44] The FCC later ruled the broadcast was not obscene, indecent or profane and denied the AFA complaints. [45]
  • AFA directly lobbied[46][47] US Senators responsible for the CDA whose obscenity provisions were later ruled an unconstitutional limitation on free speech (i.e. censorship) on the Internet.
  • Perhaps most egegious in the non-children-related category was the AFA's campaign (successful in some markets) to preempt the airing of the NBC show "The Book of Daniel" not on the basis of obscenity, but because the AFA believed it "mocked Christianity."[48]

Hope this helps. AUTiger » talk 06:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The last one is the best in the non-child category. I can see how that raises a question of censorship for some. It is too bad the filtering out of the Christian viewpoint everywhere is not considered censorship, but when a Christian organization stands up to prevent the defaming of the religion, then that's considered censorship. Be that as it may, that's an issue to big for this page, so just looking at the AFA's effort to prevent the defaming of Christianity, I suppose some people might view that as censorship. Then that might be raised in the article proper as well as in a cat.
But the other two cats are clear stretches of the soapbox. Although, again, if someone can provide proof, I'll reconsider like I did with censorship. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 06:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's the same argument - the AFA is involved in the wider societal debate over homophobia and discrimination. In the case of discrimination, the AFA is active in the debate over what is appropriate for a corporate non-discrimination policy. As far as I can see, they actively campaign against anti-Christian discrimination and against the prohibition of anti-gay discrimination. That doesn't really matter, of course, because their position in the discrimination debate is entirely irrelevant to the category. It's the fact that they're in the debate at all that matters. A google search for "non-discrimination" shows clearly that they're involved in advocacy and debate around the issue.
For homophobia, that's really a subset of discrimination. You should realise that the Wikipedia community has very recently considered that category and it passed with a convincing "Keep". Therefore, if you say that it's a pejorative and POV to include anything in it, you're going against a more widely established consensus than anything which has come up on this page. Orpheus 07:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Its still controversial. Its also something that just about anything can be categorized with. Following WP recommendations on categories, it can be removed. The pejorative issue only relates to how editors are trying to apply the category. Sorry the category issue is so flawed. But we have to follow recommendations on this. If you want the categories in, then you have to find an uncontroverted statement that it is uncontroversial that AFA is homophobic. The burden of proof is on you. Hal Cross 07:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
You don't need that kind of statement at all. If the category was "Homophobic organisations" then yes, you would. But it's not - it's an umbrella category. All of this was hashed out in the CfD and the community consensus was "keep". You're misusing the category guidelines, which are meant to offer guidance, not prescriptions. Orpheus 07:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Your point "Its also something that just about anything can be categorized with" is flawed. The only articles which belong in the homophobia (or any other) category are those which relate in some way to the topic of the category. For instance, the Hovercraft article has no place in that category. That's narrow enough to satsify WP:CAT - and that's not just my opinion, it's the community consensus as expressed in CfD. Orpheus 07:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Orpheus, you seem to be flogging a dead horse. Its very predictable the way this category issue is going to go. I was actually inaccurate in saying the category thing being flawed. I can see the wisdom it in. Basically, Wikipedia consensus on cats is giving you a backup opportunity to make sure the issue is presented (according to NPOV in lists, rather than trying to get round NPOV using cats). Nobody is refusing the information in Wikipedia. But according to the cat recommendations, you need to show that they are uncontroversial. You have not proven any such thing. If anything your actions have shown that they are highly controversial. Nobody is trying to remove the information in any form. Wikipedia gives you the backup of using a list, because the list gives you the ability to present using annotations so that NPOV can be satisfied.
The only people who do not benefit from these category recommendations are the ones who want the broad sweeping cats to be applied to get around NPOV. Wikipedia recommendations seem to be written to cope with this problem. So please stop restoring the controversial cats into the article. You have presented no uncontroverted evidence to say these cats are uncontroversial. In light of these reasonable WP recommendations, your actions seem to me to be tendentious, dismissive, and disruptive. You are given other options in order that you stop causing endless conflict here. I think it is high time that you take the alternative route that has been provided for you, and start to respect NPOV oriented Wikipedia recommendations. Hal Cross 08:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I've provided several reasons why it's uncontroversial that the AFA is involved in the issue of discrimination. I'm not saying they discriminate, merely that they are an important voice in the debate and the category should reflect that. You haven't responded to my reasoning except to state that I'm causing conflict and acting tendentiously and disruptively. I ask you to address the issue itself rather than repeatedly declaring an end to the discussion. Orpheus 10:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Orpheus. Your reasoning is basically that you want the categories. We know you want the categories judging by the rather desperate and disruptive way you keep forcing them into the article. You have not provided evidence of censorship being uncontroversial in this case. Sorry, but the burden of proof is on you. Its the category-to-list NPOV based recommendation and if you don't want to present the list then you don't have to. But stop trying to present the categories when you have no evidence at all that the categories are uncontroversial. The cats can go at any time. I suggest you start working on the lists. Hal Cross 11:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Controversial is a very vague word. One can claim most every category is controversial if they don’t agree with the category and dispute it on the talk page. WP:CAT is flawed in saying that something needs to be uncontroversial and self-evident to be a category, because that would mean if one person has a problem with any category on any article, WP:CAT would recommend him/her to remove it, even if the article belongs in that category. Guidelines are there to recommend, but are in no way a set of rules or regulations; they are very often ignored and are not policy. Why people continue to reference WP:CAT as the main reason the categories should be removed puzzles me; possibly there are no other arguments they can use. Citing a guideline is a very weak argument, especially with the overwhelming amount of information that supports the fact the AFA is homophobic, advocates discrimination, and advocates censorship. Also, Hal Cross, you should be more civil and not call another editor's editing "desperate and disruptive." —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 16:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

possibly there are no other arguments they can use. - We keep referencing WP:CAT because we're sick and tired of listing every single Wiki-policy/guideline issue with the cats and use the most concise argument possible. Re-read the archive page for the other arguments. Citadel18080 17:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The policy WP:SYN was referenced; however, WP:SYN does not apply to this situation regarding categories because it is not "A and B, therefore C." The policy WP:NPOV was referenced; however, users refused to quote any direct policy violation and refused to be specific about what part of WP:NPOV was being violated, as users could not find any direct violations, as having these categories is in no way violating WP:NPOV. The only policy/guideline that is in violation is the guideline WP:CAT and nothing else; if you feel there is another violation please list it, because these non-specific claims of WP:NPOV and inaccurate claims of WP:SYN violations are not valid reasons. I believe users who want the disputed categories to be removed have realized there is no actual policy violation and that is why these users keep referring the guideline WP:CAT over and over again, despite the fact that guidelines are widely ignored. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 18:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I stand by WP:SYN, and to use words like "Discrimination", "Censorship", and "Homophobia" to describe an active political/religous organization which is not widely regarded as being these things is inherently NPOV. A specific policy violation, however, occurs here. You're stating that it is a "fact" that the AFA advocates these things. It is really an opinion. I think this is where we're disagreeing the most. Since categorization can't be "balanced", as the above WP:NPOV link suggests, lists should be used to make the assertions As I've said before, just say the word and I will create those lists myself.Citadel18080 19:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I've provided several reasons why it's uncontroversial that the AFA is involved in the issue of discrimination. I'm not saying they discriminate, merely that they are an important voice in the debate and the category should reflect that. Orpheus, the categories in question are just too broad. I refer you to WP:NCCAT, "Articles should be placed in the most specific categories possible. Categories should be more or equally as broad as the articles they contain; articles should be more or equally specific as the categories they are in." I agree with you that it the AFA is an important voice in these debates, but there is currently no category for "organizations that are involved in Discrimination debate". This is exactly the scenario in which lists are approriate, as they can be balanced much more easily than categories. Citadel18080 19:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
We'll folks, I'm off on vacation. I'll be back on Sunday. Citadel18080 19:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
You are misinterpreting WP:SYN. Also, you claim what I state is an opinion; however, I have many reliable sources stated above which show it is a fact and not an opinion. I can't see how anyone can actually believe it is not a fact the AFA advocates discrimination, censorship, and is homophobic after reading the evidence myself and others have presented on this talk page. The only reason I can think of is that some users want these categories removed because some people may view these categories as something negative (even though it is not implied) and refusing to recognize clearly presented facts is the only way users can argue against including these categories on this article. I think this type of behavior is unconstructive, as it is clear these issues are facts and are not opinion; claiming these facts are opinions is misleading and incorrect. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 21:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
CMMK, you may have a source to support a view, but it is controverted. Where there is a controversy the cats can be removed according to categorization recommendations and we are into the cat-to-list process. Use lists and try to satisfy NPOV that way. Because its seriously not happening with your category use. Arguments don't cut it. If there is evidence of controversy in the literature, then we simply move along to lists. NPOV is the crux of the matter here. Categories have been proven to be unworkable for many months of conflict. Its time to move to lists. Hal Cross 01:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello all. To include anything in the article, burden of proof is on you. I'd agree with that. If you have provided no satisfactory evidence, then including such cats at any time is utterly wrong. I think that is the main argument causing problem here. Evidence is important on Wikipedia, and its the evidence rather than the argument that matters. I suggest that people start working with evidence rather than argument then the matter will be handled with less conflict. There seems to me to be no need to argue specific points of meaning. Its just a matter of looking for words such as controversy, disagreement, and so on. Docleaf 01:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Another suggestion: Have you considered working on annotations for a suggested list entry here on this talk page? It may be something that you can do to start the ball rolling and to break out of the conflict. Docleaf 01:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Docleaf and Welcome. Well no, I think it would be simpler just to move the issue to the list's article or talk pages. There has been far too much conflict here already. Hal Cross 01:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Outdent. Hello FeloniousMonk. You made this revert - [49]. We seem to be talking about two types of evidence. There is no evidence anywhere that the cats or the issues are uncontroversial. There are arguments from all sides in the literature. There are arguments here also. So the cats are more appropriate for lists. If you want the cats in the article, the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence that there is no controversy. Hal Cross 06:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hal, we've provided dozens of references (i.e., evidence) that the AFA is involved in the censorship, discrimination and homophobia issues. We've also provided reasons why categories are more suited to this than lists. The category guidelines are guidelines specifically because the people who wrote them recognised that there are exceptions. WP:IAR is a policy because it acknowledges that even the highest ranked policy has some exceptions. Guidelines are guidelines, not policy, because they have lots of exceptions. They guide us. We need a reason to go against them. We have, in this case, plenty of reasons - with evidence - to include those categories. In your contributions to this talk page, you haven't addressed those reasons. You keep asserting that your position is The Right One and Will Be Done. That requires consensus. Orpheus 08:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Orpheus, you seem to be ignoring the point. CMMK seems to be dismissing the point [50]I know you have evidence that people accuse AFA of such and such. That is not the point. The main point is that you have not provided any evidence that the cats are uncontroversial. There is abundant evidence that there is a controversy there and zero evidence that there is no controversy. You have a burden of proof to give such evidence before the cats are allowed in the article. The cats are controversial and can be removed at any time. You can add them to lists any time you like. It does mean you can annotate them, and NPOV can be represented properly there. But adding the cats here only circumvents NPOV. Which is why the recommendation to go to lists is the general Wikipedia consensus. Hal Cross 08:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Your reading of Wikipedia policy is flawed in this case. If you apply your overly strict interpretation, virtually no articles would have categories at all. That's why WP:CAT is a guideline, not a policy.
The point you are completely ignoring is that those categories are not an accusation. They do not say "The AFA censors. The AFA discriminates" etc. They are a collection of articles relating to those debates. I asked a simple question above, which you did not answer (instead accusing me of being disruptive) - would you please answer it. Do you really think that the American Family Association has nothing whatsoever to do with the current debate (in society at large) over censorship? (insert other categories as appropriate). Orpheus 08:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
And if you apply your version, then all articles can have these cats. There is no solution to the problem you are maintaining. I am not interested whether the cats are accusational or not. The point is there is a controversy and as such, editors should move to lists instead. That way we are being careful to make sure NPOV is given a chance. Otherwise, as I said, NPOV is circumvented. My reply to your question is that it is irrelevant what I think about AFA and society. I am working according to the fact that there is a controversy, and as such lists are the way to go. I am also resigned to the fact that going to lists is simply a matter of course. Its inevitable. Its just one of those things. That is what happens when cats are controverial. You may try to keep up the dismissive and disruptive editing, reverts, and commentary, but the categories will end up out of the artile nevertheless. Feel free to start designing whatever commentary you want for the lists. Hal Cross 09:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
NPOV isn't circumvented because the categories are neutral terms. The point of view issue comes from your interpretation of the words. As KillerChihuahua said before, "the Institute for the Study of Academic Racism is in the Racism cat; not because they advocate racism, nor because they are racists, but because they are involved in the overall category as an institute which studies racism.". The categories encompass a wide variety of articles covering all points of view on the issues. If you don't think that's appropriate, you should open a CfD and discuss it there. As the categories stand now, the AFA article belongs in there. There's no violation of NPOV. Orpheus 10:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
There really is no such thing as a neutral term, and it doesn't matter. I have already told you I don't care what people think of the term censorship, homophobia, or AFA. What I do care about is the fact that there is a clear and present controversy. There is one. So stop ignoring the real issue. If there is a controversy, then cats are inappropriate. Why are lists more appropriate? Because there is a controvers over the categories. Some say it is about censorship, some say its not. That can be properly represented using lists. It cannot be properly represented using cats. Using cats is a way to circumvent NPOV. So it is inevitable that editors who want NPOV to be satisfied will remove the cats. Hal Cross 15:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Hal Cross, I find it frustrating you seem to be ignoring users who are telling you that the guideline WP:CAT is there to guide, is not a set of rules, and can often be ignored. You keep referencing WP:CAT's reference to controversy, but you need to understand this is a very weak argument and perhaps you should take another route to try to persuade users to prove your point instead of filling up this talk page with the same weak arguement over and over.

Per your reference to NPOV violation, I believe you are misunderstood to what WP:NPOV policy means. Please re-read this policy and try to understand it a little better, as having these categories is in no way a violation of NPOV. If you feel these categories are not NPOV or somehow inappropriate for Wikipedia they can be nominated and deleted through WP:CfD; however, these categories will not be deleted if you nominated them because the majority of users support them, so obviously that is a sign there is nothing wrong with these categories. Definition: Neutral -- not aligned with or supporting any side or position in a controversy[51]. While you might not believe theses categories are neutral terms, they are neutral beacuse they do not state the AFA is opposed or in favor of these topics; please understand this simple concept. Thank you. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 16:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Although I'm an administrator, I offer the following with the caveat that it's only my personal opinion, and not any kind of binding guideline: I am, generally, of the belief that general subject overview categories such as Category:Censorship, Category:Homophobia and Category:Discrimination should contain only articles about various aspects of the thing itself, and not articles about individual people or groups that have been accused, rightly or wrongly, of engaging in them.

For example, the discrimination category should certainly include the overview article on slavery — but it should not contain articles about individual slave owners or slavery-supporting organizations. Similarly, the homophobia category should include articles about homophobia, but not specific individual homophobes. (And since the homophobia category is already a subcategory of the discrimination category, no article should be simultaneously filed in both of those, regardless of whether you agree with my opinion or not.) I'm less concerned with the POV-ness of the categorizations, however, than I am with the cleanness of the categories; to me, applying these categories to individual people and groups is very much like filing an individual writer directly in Category:Literature, instead of in Category:German poets or Category:Canadian novelists. Things should always be categorized by what they are (an organization, a writer, etc.) rather than by general subject areas that they're related to; the latter kind of categorization simply muddles up the general topic categories.

My suggestion would be as follows:

  1. Replace Category:Censorship with Category:Censorship in the United States (more specific).
  2. Replace Category:Homophobia with Category:History of LGBT civil rights in the United States (much clearer about the relationship between the two topics, and not as prone to endless debate about the POV-ness of it).
  3. Kill Category:Discrimination (duplicate).

But again, this is only my opinion. Except for point #3; avoiding duplicate categorization as much as possible is actual Wikipedia policy. Bearcat 17:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point on the duplicates. I'd go with Discrimination rather than Homophobia though, simply because the AFA is vocal in many areas related to discrimination policy, not just LGBT stuff. For instance, they're active in the movement to prevent discrimination against Christians. Orpheus 17:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello Bearcat. Thank you! And welcome. Yes, I agree that the proposal is better than the three other cats. I do feel it doesn't address the main concerns though, about clean categories, and about satisfying NPOV in regard to the Cens US cat, there is an NPOV problem that needs annotation. Lists really are the way to go. And its a simple solution that is already well accepted by WP community. The main resistance to that seems to be the desire to get around NPOV. The LGBT civ rights cat seems to be fine to me and I'm happy that you presented it. Hal Cross 03:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice Bearcat; much appreciated. I believe your #1 and #2 suggestions are great suggestions and I agree with them; however, I agree with Orpheus in that we should not remove the Category:Discrimination. I prefer to keep Category:Homophobic, but maybe it's best remove it, as I don’t have enough time to debate it and I’m not opposed to comprising. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 06:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Finally! After nearly a half year of total control of the cats by two editors, and after I have taken significant heat for raising the issue with capital letters and the like, one of those two people has finally removed one of those cats and narrowed another. [52] For me this is proof I was right to raise this issue in the first place and keep it going as long as it has. What a sense of relief! Thank you everyone!--LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 07:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes its definitely an improvement and a welcome one at that. I'm actually very surprised that other experienced admins such as KC and FM didn't mention anything about the subcat and specificity problem. I guess such things slip sometimes. At least I learned something new. Hal Cross 08:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Category:History of LGBT civil rights in the United States isn't a subcategory of Category:Discrimination, so I think they should both stay for the reasons given above. Orpheus 08:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Orpheus, the whole changeover is predicated on the notion that only subjects about discrimination should be part of the cat. Organizations or people being accused of discrimination, should not be part of the cat because it adds nothing to knowledge about categories. That information belongs in lists. More importantly, discrimination is controversial in this case because there are denials. Take it to lists and please stop badgering us with insoluble disruption. Hal Cross 12:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Hal, I would appreciate it if you would follow WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. As with all my Wikipedia edits, I aim to improve articles, not disrupt them.
Nobody is accusing the AFA of discrimination. They are an important voice in several debates about discrimination. If you want to put more specific categories to fully cover their advocacy, go for it. Lists are inadequate for this task. There is no controversy that the AFA are involved in discussing discrimination policy in America, in both private and public sector. You not liking it does not make it a controversy. Orpheus 12:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Orpheus, Bearcat brought up the issue. Do you think Bearcat doesn't "like it"? The reason lists are recommended according to consensus recommendation is because they can handle NPOV controversy whereas cats cannot. There is a controversy in the literature per se. It is not because of what I am saying liking, loving, disliking, whatever, it is because of what is verifiable. Now please stop haggling for a circumvention of NPOV policy. Hal Cross 14:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to speculate what Bearcat thinks. I think his reasoning is sound and I respect his opinion. His reasoning for removing the discrimination cat is that it was a duplicate of homophobia. It's no longer a duplicate, and the AFA's status as a voice in the discrimination debate covers more than just GLBT issues. I'm not attempting to circumvent NPOV because it's not an issue here - it isn't a controversial point of view to say that the AFA is involved in the debate. Orpheus 14:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Orpheus. Anyone can remove those new categories, and the discrimination category, whenever they like because they are controversial. You can work with lists. Hal Cross 15:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I removed all controversial categories. I am following categorization recommendations. If anyone wants to reinstate any of the categories that Bearcat proposed, then you will need to discuss here first. Editors adding information to the article are under the burden of proof to show they are uncontroversial. Editors who remove the categories seem to be reasonable and open to negotiation. That will require discussion. Any forcing of categories onto the article will most likely result in removal and a requirement for longer negotiation. As per recommendations, controversial cats can be removed at any time. Hal Cross 08:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

(od) The emerging consensus seems to be that categories are staying, but in modified form. I'm happy to stick to that consensus. LAEC seems to like it as well. We haven't heard from Citadel yet. You, Hal, seem to be the only one still insisting on lists. It's extremely arrogant of you to make flat statements like "You can work with lists". Please try to participate in Wikipedia's community-based processes rather than assuming you can use your own interpretation of the guidelines as the absolute truth. A large part of what you are saying is simply not true.. This page is chock full of reasons to keep the categories, none of which you ever bother to address. Orpheus 10:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Orpheus, I am not arrogant and calling me such is known as a personal attack. You can work with lists. You have that option. Consensus in this case does not trump NPOV policy. The policy involves stating matters as neutrally as possible taking into account all views. Annotations are not possible with categories, and so NPOV is not satisfied. That is the main point here. There is a case for including the categories you want to, but that seems to be becoming more and more distant the more you sling personal attacks around and the more you try to force categories into the article. Bearcat's suggestions are a compromise already. I think the suggestions are reasonable but I have my doubts and I am sure others also have doubts. Considering your recent actions, my doubts seem to be doubling each time you force the cats in without discussion and without fulfilling your burden of proof to say they are uncontroversial. NPOV is the main issue here. Forcing edits and claiming others are on your side really doesn't cut it. Sorry, the cats can go for now until you find a way to make amends. Hal Cross 15:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Hal Cross, you have no authority as to what people can and can not do to this article: You claim users "need" to discuss categories before adding them and assert "the cats can go for now until you find a way to make amends"; however, you have no power to demand these things. Multiple users have extensively and sufficiently discussed why the categories belong here and it is you who refute every pro-category discussion with your same repetitive arguments. Further discussing as to why we need to prove why it is uncontroversial to satisfy some weak guideline argument is not necessary for this inclusion to the article. Your NPOV claims are absolutely false, as categories are neutral terms. Editors have pointed this out to you before multiple times, but you seem to ignore them and keep repeating the same weak and flawed arguments. It is not necessary to have to "prove" to you why the categories belong here when users in favor of categories have already clearly stated their position and you have already made it clear you are determined not to compromise, but instead insist on using a list in lieu of categories. I believe discussing this with you is completely unnecessary, unless a new argument is presented, because dicussions with you seem to go nowhere; only goes in circles. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 16:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
CMMK. I am discussing calmly before any such suggestions are presented in the article. I am not forcing anything in there myself. The recommendations state that cats should only go in if uncontroversial. The burden of proof is on you, not me. I am not demanding anything. It is the recommendation that is speaking here. The cat is neutral thing is passe already. It is not even an issue. The recommendation is to use lists because NPOV can be satisfied that way. You seem to be against that. Discussion should involve having the cats removed from the article and calmly discussed. Instead, you are not discussing and you are forcing the categories in regardless. I have already shown interest in Bearcat's suggestions. Those need discussing fully, with all recommendations being considered. Again, you simply forced the cats in regardless of including all regular editors. I believe I am recommending a reasonable set of steps to move towards solutions here. I am on the receiving end of a lot of flack though. Including personal attacks on myself. I don't believe you are being constructive about this at all. Please carefully reconsider your stance before making another comment. Hal Cross 18:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

HalCross, arrogance is being a new editor with less that 50 articlespace edits and yet declaring yourself the unilateral authority on wikipedia guidelines and policies and ignoring the arguments and opinions of far more experienced editors, including administrators - especially an admin who was a primary author of parts of WP:CAT (Bearcat, which explains why he brought such nuance that even other admins did not discuss). As you are such an authority, please feel free to quote the guideline which states there is a burden of proof to show there is no controversy. In fact, you are engaging in a double fallacy, both raising the burden of proof to an arbitrarily high level and insisting on a negative proof.
Once again, the categories are neutral - multiple examples have been given; the categories have not been deleted at CfD. AFA is associated by many, many published sources with the issues of censorship and discrimination and engages in activities on both the pro- and con- sides of each issue (e.g. fighting against alleged discrimination and censorship of Christians). Even if the AFA was being categorized as pro-censorship, their own declaration that they are not censors isn't sufficient to constitute a controversy. Can you provide reliable sources that say "associating AFA with censorship is controversial"? AUTiger » talk 17:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Autiger. I believe you should also reconsider your stance before making another comment or edit. You also seem to be personally attacking me. There is nothing unilateral about my edits or comments. I am making them based upon what I believe to be the sum of comments that have been made about careless category use over the past months. Editors have been trying to work with categorization recommendations for a long time here by removing carelessly placed categories that don't satisfy NPOV policy. In situations of conflict it is more constructive to move offending material to the talkpage to discuss fully. We have a brand new set of suggestions, and a couple of editors are continually forcing their particular version upon the article during a weekend in the summer time (northern hemisphere). I believe that to be disruptive behaviour. I am suggesting calmly discussing the new recommendations, and all I am getting is personal abuse in return. Again, even under such personal abuse, I maintain that such cats should be kept out of the article and fully discussed and all regular editors should have some chance of pitching in before any further suggestions are implemented. Some editors have been reasonable by showing interest in Bearcat's suggestions, and other editors have been unreasonable by forcing their version of the solution into the article. First, a good measure of civil discussion may help. Hal Cross 18:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey everyone, let's all get along and help each other out. Now HalCross has few edits. So what? We all did at one time. HalCross has contributed quite a bit and in reasonable fashion for a newbie. Let's all go a little easier on him. The main problem on this page was resolved a few days ago after a long period. So let's all start afresh again and have fun editing together. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 18:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
First, you should examine the mote in your own eye before accusing any more people of personal attacks. And consider your stance as well.
Second, you are the only editor I have seen demanding proof of "no controversy that AFA is associated with censorship" (or discrimination) - a demand that is both unsupported by guidelines or policy and is an utterly fallacious argument. Once again, I ask for your source that "associating AFA with the subject of censorship is controversial" as you assert.
What else do you wish to discuss about Bearcat's suggestions? Inclusion in Category:History of LGBT civil rights in the United States is self-evident; the AFA is prominent voice against codification of LGBT civil rights, what they call the "homosexual agenda", by your own assertion and contribution of a section. AUTiger » talk 21:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no source I know of stating the AFA's stance on these issues is controversial. Hal Cross is interoperating WP:CAT’s use of "controversial" to mean if any user find the category controversial. According to the way controversial is referenced in WP:CAT, it may be interpreted to mean if a user finds it controversial--not if the general public (reported though a reliable source) finds it controversial. This is part of the reason why I said that section of WP:CAT is too vague and is why I believe the guideline should be ignored in this case. Hal Cross does not seem to understand this, or he does understand it, but refuses to admit it beacuse it is his main arguement against removing the categories. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 21:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't the entire discussion that has occured the past few days, but I very much approve of using alternate cats if it will end this debate. The replacement of "Homophobia" with "History of LGBT civil rights" is an excellent compromise. I think that "Censorship in the United States" is still a little vague, as is "Discrimination". I suggest that Category:Censorship be replaced with more specific categories, such as Category:Pornography law and Category:Obscenity law. For "Discrimination, one possibility would be to replace Category:Discrimination with Category:Discrimination law, as the AFA's activism is focused on the enforcement of anti-discrimination laws to protect the rights of Christians. Thoughts, anyone? Citadel18080 22:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm against the idea of replacing the categories with "_____ law" because most of the boycotts relating to these categories are not to influence laws or politicians, but rather to influence companies to self-censor by not carrying certain items or by doing other similar actions. Also, AFA does not advocate only making it legal to discriminate against homosexuals, but also boycott companies that are giving marriage benefits to gay couples or otherwise recognizing/supporting gay employees or causes. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 23:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Category:Pornography law may be acceptable, but Category:Obscenity controversies is more accurate than Obscenity law (and is a subcat of Olaw as well) given AFA's actions against Penthouse and Playboy and stores which carry them - those actions caused controversies, but were not about changing a law. I also think Category:Discrimination law is acceptable, but I will note for the record that your argument for it is from a sympathetic point of view, something KillerChihuahua previously cautioned Hal against. AFA's activism is even greater in their efforts to block the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.[53] AUTiger » talk 23:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Ouch, AUTiger, I know not why you said what you did in response to my suggestion that everyone get along. And that suggestion was not even directed at a single person. Yes, I have been one deep in the fray here, but who better to suggest we all get along. When Rodney King said can't we all just get along, that was national news. When I just said it, that was cause to accuse me of personal attacks. Well, I do not want to perpetuate such stuff. Therefore, AUTiger, I apologize to you for anything I may have said to cause you to react as you did. Let's be friends from now on okay? And that goes for everyone, even the admin who blocked me for doing what ultimately turned out to result in the successful conclusion for all to this half year long nut. Let's all be friends. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 01:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for some more reasonable comments folks. Citadel, your suggestions are reasonable and you seem to be following Bearcat's constructive line of thinking. Considering the recent infractions of the civility recommendations, I feel it is imperative to take time to really discuss these suggestions here. AUTiger. Here is just one piece of evidence that there is controversy. I posted it above before and there is other evidence there [54]. It is not just my view that there is a controversy as CMMK seems to keep on repeating. It is the evidence that shows the controversy clearly. There is no evidence stating that it is an uncontroversial issue. AUTiger and Orpheus, I know I came to WP a little brashly in the beginning, but I've rather taken to the civility regulations here. You on the other hand seem to be experienced editors and should probably know better. Please do not use personal attacks on any other editor. Hal Cross 01:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Hal, you should continue to brush up on WP:NPA and WP:AGF because you apparently don't realize your continuing and repeated accusations of editors attempting to "circumvent NPOV" can be considered a personal attack. As to the link you reference, it is just AFA's own denial of being pro-censorship; it does not represent a reliable source, nor does it state that associating AFA with issue of censorship is controversial. Once again, your assertion that a negative proof must be produced is a logical fallacy. Regardless, we appear to be moving toward more detailed categories. Do you have objection to using Obscenity controversies and Pornography law categories? AUTiger » talk 02:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
(EC) LAEC, that response was to HalCross, not to you; that's why it's at the same indent level as your comment and not indented further. That's talk page convention for the response hierarchy, but I'll start prefacing every response with an account name. I'm sorry that you thought it was directed at you and I do hope this will continue to a solution that everyone can live with. AUTiger » talk 01:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The AFA's about page isn't a sufficiently reliable source for establishing controversy, which has been discussed several times already. If anything, it strengthens the case for inclusion because it shows that they are indeed deeply enmeshed within the debate.
Regarding the categories, it seems to me that we should look at the range of the AFA's involvement in these debates to decide how wide to cast the category net. In the case of censorship, they are spread very widely across a lot of facets, and to avoid over-categorisation I think Censorship in the US would be the most appropriate category. For discrimination, they seem to focus mostly on homosexuality, non-discrimination policy in the workplace, and anti-Christian discrimination. We have the LGBT civil rights cat for the first one, and I would support two appropriate categories to cover the latter two. In my opinion, that would cover the discrimination debate adequately. I'm open to suggestions about their wider involvement from those who follow the group's activities more closely. Orpheus 02:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks AUTiger. I am learning something new everyday here. I did say there are other refs above concerning the controversy over censorship. Orpheus was part of that discussion but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt as I don’t think you were around for that one. Concerning negative evidence – if you can provide a statement to say something like “there is no controversy” from a reliable source then I think you are getting somewhere. That is what I have suggested all along. Its not a logical fallacy at all and I am sure you would know that. Perhaps you misread my words. I’d like to be given reasonable time to look into Obscenity controversies and Pornography law categories, as I am sure other editors would. It would be nice if other editors weren’t trying to force their own prefs into the article in the meantime. As per recommendations, we do need to be careful with categories. I believe that means discussing them without editors constantly forcing them onto the article causing endless conflict in the meantime. Thanks. Hal Cross 02:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Hal Cross, are you not reading what AUTiger wrote? Users do not have to show negative proof. If no controversy exists there is not going to be some source that says "there is no controversy"; do you not understand this? If there is a controversy, then you should find a source in support of that to make your case of WP:CAT violation not so weak. Maybe you are demanding others find negative proof because you can't find any proof these topics are controversial; I really don't know why you are doing this. Also, your reference to the AFA is irrelevant, as I stated before: "AFA claims they are not in favor of censorship because they state "censorship, by definition is government imposed." However, censorship has multiple meanings and does not exclusively mean government imposed, so citing how the AFA believes they are not in favor in censorship by the government has nothing to do the AFA inclusion to Category:Censorship, as this category does not exclusively refer to censorship as government imposed." Further, the AFA site you refernced states nothing about a controversy. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 03:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
CMMK, I am working to set up a situation conducive to constructive editing, and I am making suggestions to discourage the forcing of anything into the article. Bearcat stated the view that cats should include information about the subject. People or groups who have been accused of that subject should be left out and go to lists where the issues can be properly annotated. I agree with that point. It honors the very rationale for having cats, it honors NPOV policy, it honors constructive and harmonious editing, and it honors the categorization recommendation to be careful and go to lists when there is any controversy. There is a definite controversy eg [55] Calvin Klein Inc. and the "Kiddie Porn" Ads (A) Margaret J. Naumes, William Naumes, University of New Hampshire. North American Case Research Association (NACRA) Case Collection. Waltham: 1999. 6 pgs. “In the (B) case the controversy escalated, as the FBI announced an investigation into whether the ads were child pornography, and others became concerned about possible censorship.”. Boycotts will be boycotts Nicholas Confessore. The American Prospect. Princeton: Jul 31, 2000. Vol. 11, Iss. 17; pg. 10, 1 pgs. AFA says they are not censoring. There is an obvious controversy and as such the cat can be removed. There has always been the list alternative, though it has been dismissed for months and cats have been forced upon the article while the BRD cycle has also been dismissed [56]. I know it is hard to present evidence to say there is no controversy, but that is the burden you place yourself with when you want to present a category. That’s just the way it goes with categories. That’s why the recommendation involves the option of lists. NPOV is the main issue here. With the evidence so strongly presented; with controversy lasting many months on the talkpage, with the cats being forced upon the article so dismissively of discussion, with the obvious evidence that there is controversy, and with editors working together over the weekend to force their version so disruptively, I feel that a lot needs to be done to make the situation more constructive here. Please calmly discuss options for the new categories. And please do it without forcing any such categories into the article. Thank you. Hal Cross 06:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The burden of proof is not on me and I don’t care to follow your demands to keep the categories off this article. I do not care to discuss this with you any further, as I don’t think disagreement is going to go anywhere or be resolved, as apparent by your attitude and refusal to recognize when other users (besides myself) inform you about your inaccurate claims. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 07:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes CMMK, your refusal is consistent with your dismissive actions on the article. I believe there are plenty of editors who want to discuss these issues here. We have plenty of options and they do need to be covered. We are not just handling a single category reccomendation. There seem to be two possible compromises on the cards. However, your reluctance to discuss seems to be taking you further away from reasonabe discussoin and closer to self-exclusion. Forcing the cats is disruptive. You are currently disrupting the discussion process. Nobody is interested in censoring anything here. But we have to discuss civilly. It would help if you and Orpheus broke the habit of forcing controversial elements into the article. I am sure other editors would agree, moving controversial elements from the article to the talkpage is the sensible way to proceed. I would like to see long term constructive editing/discussion cycles here, and I am sure other editors would appreciate it also. Hal Cross 07:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

(od) I've posted on WP:WQA (here) for a neutral opinion on the conduct issues here. Hopefully we can all benefit from that, and then focus on negotiating the content dispute without the distraction of who said what and how. Orpheus 09:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Category Solution

Please put discussion in the next section and keep this one just for the proposed solution. If you have changes, edit this summary. Then, at the end of the discussion, we can copy these categories to the article.

OK, here's a summary of the proposed changes. From:

  1. Category:Censorship
  2. Category:Discrimination
  3. Category:Homophobia


  1. Category:Censorship in the United States
  2. Category:Discrimination in the United States
  3. Category:History of LGBT civil rights in the United States
  4. Category:Obscenity controversies
  5. Category:Consumer boycotts
  6. Category:Boycott organizers
  7. Category:Community organizers

Doh! We were edit conflicting over this and I was getting the strangest results and had to completely reload the page to figure out what was going on. Ironically, I was just going to suggest rather than addressing the categories as a group, each category be considered individually so as to more easily discuss each on its own merits. Adding a subsection headings in this section for each of the currently proposed categories would result in a nice, clean way to keep the individual category-related discussions close to each other. AUTiger » talk 02:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Categories, Part 2

Orpheus, I agree that this discussion is getting off topic. I suggest that future discussion regarding user conduct be placed on the user talk pages. I've also discovered that a WP:TALK guideline recommends that posts be approximately 100 words in length, and I see no reason not to follow it. Getting back to the resolution of the category debate, I am willing to accept "Censorship in the United States", since it is less vague than "Censorship", but "Discrimination" remains too vague. IMO, it can be suitably replaced with Category:Discrimination law, Category:Obscenity controversies (as AUTiger suggests), and Category:Pornography law. Citadel18080 15:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Citadel. I am very much open to considering your suggestions. Some time to digest the suggestions is a good idea. There are still controversial elements to some of those categories, so it would be quite a big compromise to add them. I believe some editors are careful and reasonable though, and as long as your suggestion is not too compromising to NPOV policy, then it could be acceptable. Discrimination is too vague for sure. Discrimination law could be a good option. I'll revisit the literature on this matter. Thanks for the suggestion. Hal Cross 15:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

(proposed summary moved to new section)

I don't think that Category:Pornography law is necessary as it is covered by Category:Anti-pornography activists already.

Also, it seems to me that a large focus of the AFA's activities relate to boycotts. Perhaps we should include a category to reflect that. Start with Category:Boycotts and let's see if we can either come up with a more specific one or agree on the general one. Thoughts? Orpheus 17:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Category:Pornography law is redundant; I hadn't noticed that the anti-pornography category was there. There's a subcategory in Category:Boycotts called Category:Consumer boycotts, in which the AFA would fit in well. We can also create new subcategories if needed. Citadel18080 20:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think consumer boycotts fits that well, mainly because it seems to be more for actual boycotting events rather than related groups. Creating a new subcategory is what I had in mind - what do you think it should be called? It's too early in the morning for me to be creative, but I'll have a stab later if noone has any suggestions. Orpheus 01:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
"Organizations that boycott" would be an approriate subcategory, IMO. Citadel18080 01:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
"Boycott activism" or "Boycott advocacy" perhaps? I'd be happy with "Organisations that boycott", apart from the obvious spelling edit war ;) Orpheus 02:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the AFA are definitely anti-pornography. I am not sure how much of that actually goes into pornography law or legislation. Porn law could be a little too narrow. Consumer boycotts seems to be fine to me also. Its a cat that needs filling out a bit, but the title is appropriate. Its the consumers who are boycotting rather than the AFA per se. I'll look in the literature to see if there are any particular controversies that would exclude the cat. Certainly more time is necessary for discussion and I welcome all comments. Hal Cross 04:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I think Consumer boycotts is better suited to actual boycotts - for instance, if there was an article on the Ford boycott, that would belong in that category. The AFA's role is more organisational. Orpheus 06:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Its the type of boycott not the type of organization that is relevant here. Consumer boycotts is fine. The consumer boycott cat will no doubt be filled out in future, it is an increasingly important issue in society. And it shows where majority view is held. If consumers are boycotting something, and an organization pitches in to offer more informed choice to the public, then the organization is simply contributing to the modern information based society. An organization wouldn't be able to get consumers to boycot anything if consumers hadn't started already. Hal Cross 07:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
'Category:Boycotts of organizations' is good because AFA is an organization that boycotts; perfect discription. 'Category:Consumer Boycotts' fails to mention the boycotts of organizations that have no AFA members as consumers; for example, the boycott of the gay newspaper, Texas Triangle[57] would not be considered a consumer boycott, as AFA members are not gay and therefore are not consumers of the newspaper. 'Category:Consumer Boycotts' fails to mention AFA's boycotts carried out by persons who are not consumers and therefore should not be used in replace of 'Category:Boycotts of organizations'. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 16:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Hal, I believe you're mischaracterizing AFA boycotts. They create boycotts, promote them, and subsequently take credit for any success they can identify; implying they are jumping on board with grass-roots-born, consumer-led boycotts is incorrect. Also, as an aside, existence of a boycott is in no way evidence of a majority opinion; many boycotts have have no affect on their targets and would therefore demonstrate just the opposite if any inference of correlation could be drawn at all. AUTiger » talk 17:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

(od) I've updated the proposed solution section. Everyone happy with that? If we're in agreement we can get the protection lifted and make the changes. Orpheus 17:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The proposed categories look good to me, except, I am strongly opposed to Category:Discrimination law because AFA boycotts multiple organizations because they have non-discrimination policies in place to give homosexual's with partners the same rights as married couples, which is in no way related to laws, but rather is related to Discrimination in general. Category:Discrimination law should not be used, IMO. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 17:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Christopher on this. The AFA is involved in more aspects of discrimination (both pro and anti, on lots of different issues) than just the law surrounding it. Orpheus 19:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say I have a bit of a problem with Boycotts of Organizations because my first reading of the category and the apparent intended meaning is targets of boycotts; this seems to be demonstrated by the current articles there (Coca-Cola, Nestle, Esso, Estée Lauder, Montgomery bus system). More evidence is the parallel categories Category:Boycotts of events and Category:Boycotts of countries whose members are also predominantly boycott targets. AUTiger » talk 17:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The category is not called "Organization that have been boycotted" and just because some organizations that were subjects of boycotts are placed in this category, does not make the category exclusively for organization that have been boycotted, but rather can also include organizations that participate in "Boycotts of Organizations." —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 19:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
This, incidentally, is why I favour broader categories. I think the most suitable category is simply "Boycotts". How about "Boycott coordinators"? Orpheus 19:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
IMO your previous "Boycott organizers" was best (despite the potential spelling edit war) but I won't hold up the overall proposal over the semantics of the boycott category name. AUTiger » talk 19:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
'Boycott organizers' or 'Boycott coordinators' both sound good to me, but as far as I can tell, there is no current category by either of those names. Perhaps we should just create it? —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 20:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I think we should create it. "Boycotts of organizations" is pretty specific in meaning, and the AFA typically boycotts corporations, not organizations. Category:Consumer boycotts has only one entry, and that is for an organization that advocates consumer boycotts, like the AFA. Even so, it does seem to refer to the boycotts themselves. I recommend that the new category be called "Boycott facilitators" or "Boycott initiators". Orpheus, I think that we should avoid broad categories There are literally thousands of categories on Wikipedia about the most specific of topics. I don't see a problem with creating a couple of new categories if it eliminates vagueness, as long as we make some effort to populate them. Citadel18080 23:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
My spelling objections were tongue in cheek - it's an American organisation so naturally that spelling is applied. I think that "Boycott organizers" is the better choice, but I have no strong feelings against facilitators or initiators.
Regarding the broad vs narrow categories, Citadel, I have no objection to Wikipedia having thousands of categories, but I don't think it's a good idea for any one artigle to have too many. My personal feeling is that if you can replace a broad category with one or two more specific ones (the censorship replacement is a good example) then that's a good thing. However, if you need several categories to sum it up, like the discrimination one seems to be, then it's probably better to use the parent category. CMM is right in that Discrimination law isn't a good enough fit and misses out large bits of the point - can you think of a way to sum up the AFA's attitude to all aspects of discrimination in two or three categories? Orpheus 01:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I like your suggestion Citadel. Boycotts of organizations seems fine. Boycott facilitators is also interesting, or could even be Boycott supporters. Community orgnanizing also seems to be appropriate [58] as AFA does do community organizing beyond boycotts. They seem to have a community support and mission that extends beyond just activism. The articles that are there already seem to be consistent also. I'm happy to leave the pagelock in place as long as it stops editors forcing things into the article. Hal Cross 02:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with Category:Community organizing. If no one else has objections, feel free to add it to the category proposal above. Citadel18080 04:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)I've added the proposed Boycott organizers/facilitators category to the Proposed Category Solution. Now, regarding the Discrimination categories, I agree that Category:Discrimination law is not a perfect replacement for Category:Discrimination, but I disagree that it is a fact that the AFA practices discrimination. Perhaps a new category would be approriate here. I would be happy with: "Organizations accused of discrimination", or something that is more neutral than simply Category:Discrimination. Citadel18080 04:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Citadel, from your previous post: "AFA typically boycotts corporations, not organizations" - FYI, corporations are organizations.
Also, it is a known fact that AFA advocates discrimination; I don't know if the AFA practices discrimination, but that is irrelevant because the category discrimination does not state the AFA practices, advocates, or opposes discrimination, but only that they are involved in the subject. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 04:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I've split up the discussion to make it easier to follow each thread. Orpheus 06:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Boycott-related categories

Boycott-related category discussion here

How about two categories - Category:Consumer boycotts (or Boycotts of organizations) and Category:Boycott advocates (or organizers). Facilitators reminds me too much of diversity seminars. Orpheus 06:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I propose that we go with Category:Consumer boycotts and Category:Boycott organizers. If we choose Category:Consumer boycotts, I will add a note of explanation on the category page indicating that consumer boycotts and the organizations that advocate them are listed. Facilitators also reminds me of a diversity seminar. Citadel18080 16:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Done! Unless anyone objects, we'll declare that the consensus. Orpheus 17:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
One minor change - we should either go with -izers or -izing for the Community and Boycott cats. Currently we have one of each. I prefer -izers, so if anyone has any strong feelings for -izing make them known here, otherwise we'll go with -izers.
Are you suggesting that we create a new "Community Organizers" category or try to get "Community organizing" renamed? Citadel18080 17:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Oops, I thought there was a community organizers category already. We'll go with -izing then. I was right the first time - there's already a category called Community organizers. It's a subcat of Community organizing. Orpheus 12:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Looks good. I didn't know there was already "Community organizers" caategory. Citadel18080 18:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Discrimination-related categories

Discrimination related category discussion here

Citadel: Category:Organizations that discriminate is the one you're thinking of - Discrimination doesn't imply that the AFA practices discrimination (does Discrimination law imply that they make discrimination law?) "Orgaizations accused of discrimination" isn't particularly neutral (it's sympathetic POV). There's no NPOV issues with Category:Discrimination, just scope issues. My feeling is that we're not going to be able to come up with a reasonable number of sub-categories that encompass everything, so the broader one is appropriate. It's also not relevant whether the AFA advocates discrimination or advocates against discrimination - they both come under the same category. Orpheus 06:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Orpheus has a valid point here. Category:Discrimination would be the best choice. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 06:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Anti-Christianity seems to be a highly appropriate subcategory considering the discrimination issue. It fits exactly. e.g. [59] [60]. I'm still open to discrimination law though. Hal Cross 07:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Usually a sub-category replaces the main category, so using Anti-Christianity would be a bad idea; bad description also. At least IMO. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 09:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
CMMK, you seem to be saying that replacing the discrimination category with any subcategory is not a good idea. Am I correct? Hal Cross 09:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
No, what he's saying is that there's two choices. 1) use the parent category, or 2) use multiple subcategories to cover all the required aspects. You can't have one or two subcats and the parent cat as a "catch-all". Our point is that that is difficult to achieve in this case. It's the same with censorship, which is why we settled on Censorship in the United States rather than five different subcategories of that. Orpheus 10:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure that's what CMMK meant? I think its pretty obvious I have been saying the discrimination category is inappropriate all along and should not be in the article. Hal Cross 10:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Hal Cross, Orpheusis said what I meant. Sorry for any confusion. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 10:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) IMO, it is feasible to cover all aspects of Category:Discrimination with two subcats: one detailing the AFA's anti-Christian discrimination activism (possibly Category:Discrimination law) and one detailing the accusations of discrimination against the AFA. It is not sympathetic POV to state that the AFA is simply accused of advocating and/or practicing discrimination. Just about every single activist group in history has been accused of discrimination against someone else. That is why I feel that Category:Discrimination is inappropriate, as virtually any activist organization could be included in it for the same reasons as the AFA. Since Category:Discrimination has scope problems already, I think that a new subcategory that specifically addresses accusations of discrimination would better suit this and other activist organization articles. Citadel18080 16:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your point that activist groups are always accused of discrimination, but that's not the only thing here. The AFA is specifically involved in activism around the subject of anti-discrimination policies. They're really quite enmeshed in it. So you need a cat for the anti-Christian stuff, one for discrimination policy in the workplace, one for employment law, one for the campaign against companies who broaden the definition of family for whatever reason - that's a lot of categories. Orpheus 03:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreement on various points! Good! Within the extremely broad and unworkable category of discrimination, specific anti-Christian discrimination, and discrimination law seems to cover the AFA issues well. They are articles that handle the issues well, and the cats themselves show a lot of potential for being useful ones for informing the reader. Hal Cross 07:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Orpheus; that is a lot of categories. That is why, IMO, it would be better to only have one discrimination category, 'discrimination.' If you are going to list all sub-categories, then why not list homophobia also? The AFA is homophobic... —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 09:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes this is exactly why categories like this are so controversial. And this is why the recommendation is always towards lists. Hal Cross 10:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
That's irrelevant to this discussion, and anyway the recommendation isn't always towards lists. If it was, Wikipedia wouldn't have any categories, because people argue over just about all of them. A disagreement on scope is not a POV-related controversy. Orpheus 14:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
What about a category like "Discrimination debate" that would be more specific than Category:Discrimination while covering all aspects of the AFA's involvement in the subject? Category:Discrimination can then be left for articles that define various aspects of Discrimination (e.g. Civil rights, Equal opportunity, etc.) Citadel18080 16:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
How about we match the censorship solution that everyone seems happy with and try "Discrimination in the United States"? Orpheus 17:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd be willing to accept that, provided that, on the category page, a description of what does and does not go in the category is provided for future reference. Category:Censorship in the United States has its own article, perhaps we should consider creating one for this new category as well, as long as everyone agrees to it. Citadel18080 19:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I think "Discrimination in the United States" is a good idea. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 19:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Putting the terms of reference in the category is an excellent idea, regardless of what category we talk about (I said this in an earlier comment actually, but it got drowned out). As for creating the article, no need to get agreement - just go ahead and do it. If somebody objects the article will go up for AfD and everyone will get a chance to agree or disagree there. So it looks like we might have a solution to this one as well. Orpheus 19:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to wait and see what Hal thinks about this before adding it to the proposed solution. If we all agree, I recommend that we create the "Discrimination in the United States" category with one or two sentences of explanation to start with, and add the associated article later. If we create the article now with little or no content, it could be deleted rather quickly. Citadel18080 20:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes Citadel I'm all for this compromise experiment for the sake of keeping the peace. But it should be kept in mind that if it turns out we are being careless in any way, or if it means NPOV is not satisfied, then we can simply move to lists as in the categorization recommendations. Discrimination in the US is ok for now. Hal Cross 02:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Excellent! I've added it to the list. Citadel18080 02:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hi all. I made an ANI notice regarding issues pertinent to all of us [61]My main concern is to discourage unconstructive or disruptive behaviour. Feel free to comment there. Hal Cross 09:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Category consensus

Looks like we've finally come to an agreement. Since the article is still protected, I will create the "Discrimination in the United States" category and start populating it. Citadel18080 17:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is the category: Category:Discrimination in the United States. Please assist in populating it. Citadel18080 17:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
The protection expires in about four days or so, so if nobody objects to the list above then we'll consider it the final version at that point. Orpheus 04:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Now that the dispute is over, should we archive the talk page again? Citadel18080 05:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
No, we should either expunge it entirely from civilised scrutiny or post it as a shining example of how not to have a content dispute. Given that neither of those options are possible, archiving seems like a good idea. Orpheus 06:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ "People & Events". Mennonite Brethren Herald]. 1999-11-05. Retrieved 2007-06-14. In their controversial book, The Pink Swastika, Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams assert that many leading members of the Nazi party in Germany were homosexuals. They also state that eight of the top ten serial killers in the US were homosexuals, including Donald Garvey, John Wayne Gacy, Patrick Wayne Kearney, Bruce Davis and Jeffrey Dahmer. The Apr. 22 Globe and Mail reported that the Columbine high school killers 'professed to be bisexuals'. – RTV Bulletin, Western Report  External link in |publisher= (help)
  2. ^ "Religious Right Groups Involved in Antigay Incidents". People For the American Way. Retrieved 2007-06-14. the controversial book, The Pink Swastika,