Talk:American Family Association/Archive 2

message: Sources in support of :Category:Homophobia, :Category:Discrimination:
:"Homophobia – irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals"
:"Discrimination – 3a: the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b: prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment"
:Examples of the AFA in favor of discrimination against homosexuals.
:*AFA is opposed to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act
:*AFA is opposed to homosexuals having the same rights as heterosexuals, such as:
:**The right to marriage  or marriage like benefits.
:**The right to adopt childeren 
:*"Fundamentalists such as the Rev. Donald Wildmon and his American Family Association are seen as homophobic"
:*Quote from the AFA "We want to outlaw public homosexuality"
:*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."
:*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"
::"Censoring – to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable"
: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. 
:*Support of banning nudity from being developed at photograph development stores, such as Walgreen’s 
:*Blockbuster Video decided not to stock films that carried the recently introduced NC-17 rating after pressure from the AFA.
:*7-Eleven stopped selling selling Playboy and Penthouse magazines after a two year boycott by the AFA 
:*Support of censorship of public libraries in Michigan. 
:*"The Rev. Donald Wildmon's American Family Association seeks to censor popular culture."
:*"American Family Association Claims Success in Censoring Britney Spears Appearance on 'Will & Grace'"
:*"The American Family Association has taken such an active role in trying to censor the Internet"
:*"Waldenbooks mounted a public relations campaign to fight the censorship efforts by American Family"
:*"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"
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." 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)
thread_title: Summary of argument in opposition of removal of categories

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Place comments here

message: 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 
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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 .  Hal Cross 03:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Broader concerns of AFA

message: 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.
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Welcome ElKevbo. Hal Cross 06:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  I'm going to add some more information, but will probably include a stub template anyway. Citadel18080 22:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Former personnel

message: 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:
# :Category:Censorship
# :Category:Discrimination
# :Category:Homophobia
to:
# :Category:Censorship in the United States
# :Category:Discrimination in the United States
# :Category:History of LGBT civil rights in the United States
# :Category:Obscenity controversies
# :Category:Consumer boycotts
# :Category:Boycott organizers
# :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)
thread_title:  Proposed Category Solution 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree. Orpheus has a valid point here. Category:Discrimination would be the best choice. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 06:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anti-Christianity seems to be a highly appropriate subcategory considering the discrimination issue. It fits exactly. e.g.  . I'm still open to discrimination law though. Hal Cross 07:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Hal Cross, Orpheusis said what I meant. Sorry for any confusion. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 10:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: I think "Discrimination in the United States" is a good idea. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 19:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Excellent! I've added it to the list. Citadel18080 02:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrimination-related categories 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Here is the category: :Category:Discrimination in the United States. Please assist in populating it. Citadel18080 17:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  Now that the dispute is over, should we archive the talk page again? Citadel18080 05:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Category consensus