Talk:American Family Association/Archive 5

message: All right, Hal, I'll bite. What was wrong with the material I added and you removed? Orpheus 13:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I'll say that it appears to be properly sourced (and does not, as may be the habit for some, misrepresent its sources). It also does quite a bit to further justify the inclusion of the category, regardless of whether the version without said paragraph merits using the category. Could that be the problem? --Cheeser1  —Preceding comment was added at 15:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As my edit summary said, the AFA specifically offer no information whatsoever on the definition or terminology of homophobia. You may as well have entitled the section "Homophobia terminology pantomime by editors who want the homophobia category to apply to all Christian groups". Wikipedia categorization guidelines make this a no win situation for those who want the homophobia category. Some religions, such as Catholic groups do actually have something to say about the homophobia term. Adding the view of a person from another Christian group just makes the category inappropriate for the AFA and it makes the homophobia categorization of religious groups look more inappropriate per se. If any religious group contributes to the homophobia term, it would be the major ones, and that issue belongs in other non-condemnatory categories. Or perhaps you would like to populate the homophobia category with all the mainstream religious groups. They have something to say about the term, whereas the AFA simply does not. You may have caused a ridiculous amount of trouble with trying to categorize this article with the pejorative term. Just think of how ridiculous it will look when you have a large group of editors quoting categorization guidelines against you. Hal Cross 16:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hal, a group of a single editor is a trivial group, and "Catholic groups have something to say about the term" is an exceedingly vague thing. Consensus was that the category already apples, and even so there is work to make this article include verifiable information about the term and the AFA, which was the only condition you seem to think will allow us to use the category. But now you insist that it is impossible to meet your only condition, which is an excellent catch 22, but doesn't help anything. --Cheeser1 17:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not a catch 22. Its just a broad consensus based guideline that shows how inappropriate the categorization as homophobia is to the beliefs of religious groups such as the AFA. If you can find any AFA statement that say something significant about the actual term, then present it here. If it shows more controversy, then it makes the category look even more inappropriate (which it will do). I know its a hard situation for you, but hey, I'm not the one trying to force a condemnatory category by treating dispute resolution and consensus as if it is some sort of permanently binding vote that allows Wikipedia to conclude whatever you want it to conclude. Hal Cross 18:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hal, you do not speak for Wikipedia. Your interpretation of how policy is to be correctly applied is not what rules Wikipedia. Wikipedia has no rule about not reporting on things where people disagree or where controversy exists. Also, this is not "a hard situation for [me]" and no one is treating consensus like a permanently binding vote (however, we are asking that you abide by the rules: consensus was established, and you refuse to listen). There is a difference. --Cheeser1 18:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So do you have any information about any AFA contribution to the homophobia term? Judging by the section that I reverted, there is simply nothing to say. Its just a condemnatory label used by critics who disagree with the AFA's expression of religious beliefs during a controversy. You may as well try to give the homophobia categorization to the Church of England article. Hal Cross 18:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I have to say I'm 100% with Cheeser1 on this one. It's a well sourced addition, it justifies the category, and I don't understand your objections. AniMate 21:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion