Talk:American Family Association/Archive 3

message: Stepping outside the Category dispute for a minute, is the "Internet resources" section reasonable to include? I would argue "No" because it seems to serve primarily as a link farm. These sites are linked through the AFA's website (www.afa.net); they seem extraneous. ZueJay (talk) 00:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the name to "Internet operations" to indicate that it describes websites operated by the AFA and not resources for Wikipedia users. The links are there because no Wikipedia articles have been created for the sites as of yet. Citadel18080 00:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sub-section name change greatly helps explain this section. Perhaps it is the entire Operations section that needs expansion, at least additional explanatory text, as it still seems like a list of links which would be more appropriate as ELs. Hmm...thinking about it. ZueJay (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm opposed to removing the 'Internet operations/resources' section because I don’t see it as a violation of WP:NOT#LINK, as the text is describing the various web sites and their purposes, which is important because the AFA has multiple web sites for different purposes. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 01:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. More explanatory text would be good as well. Citadel18080 02:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Internet resources

message: Hi Getaway and welcome. You made this reversion 
I am not quite sure what you mean by unreliable sources. They are the views of AFA members and associates and they come directly from the AFA website. Could you explain what you think unreliable means in this case, and perhaps explain why you would want the point of view of the organization members to be removed from the article? You also removed the pedophilia category. Do you have any evidence that the issue is controversial? Hal Cross 14:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The AFA website isn't a reliable source because it's not independent. If you quote their viewpoint almost verbatim you're turning the page into an advertisement for their views. The "homosexual agenda" has its own article - it doesn't need to be expanded in this one. As for the pedophilia category, it's not controversial at all. It's merely utter nonsense. Orpheus 15:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The AFA website is one of the most important sources on AFA. And if you are not willing to allow the core AFA viewpoints and concerns into the article, then you are simply not following NPOV policy. All significant views are to be shown on the article, and that definitely includes why they are concerned about the homosexual agenda. The way it is presented right now looks like the narrowest set of issues has been chosen and maintained there . What's more is that it is full of biased writing, such as the use of the term "claims" all over the place. If you look through the AFA website it is full of issues and concerns about the homosexual agenda that go way beyond what is written into the article right now. It definitely needs the main concerns to be shown without any kind of information suppression  "It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability". Hal Cross 00:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What's not neutral about that paragraph? It states clearly what the AFA thinks. It doesn't add commentary like "The AFA's views in this matter are widely considered by sensible people to be conspiracy theorist lunacy". Your version presented their opinion as fact. It's not - it's their opinion, and while it's important to include it in the article, it's equally important to qualify it by presenting it as their opinion. Orpheus 01:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Orpheus, I presented the views of AFA on the homosexual agenda as they see them: . I used the website and looked through all the articles at the main concerns and wrote them down there, and I stated "Members of the AFA are concerned about what they see as....". The views of AFA need to be presented. I am doing that.  You narrowed the viewpoints in the section and removed the main reasons for AFA concerns about the homosexual agenda:  and as such, the sections there become narrow and biased. So I'll continue to work to make sure the view of the AFA is "summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability". The homosexual agenda is clearly a key issue in this article so it would help if the main concerns are not whisked away as and treated as if they are "utter nonsense" as you put it. Hal Cross 16:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're presenting those views as fact. They're opinion, not fact. Nothing in what you added is new to the article, and Wikipedia isn't the place to advertise the views of any particular organisation. It's enough to mention that they think there's a "homosexual agenda" and provide a link to their website. Anyone who wants an in-depth list of their specific claims can go there. That's the difference between summarise and gush. My utter nonsense comment referred specifically to the pedophilia category you added. Don't take my comments out of context, it's not conducive to a contructive discussion. Orpheus 23:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Orpheus, I presented the fact that the AFA holds those specific views, and they are specific to the AFA's views on the homosexual agenda, rather than other views on the homosexual agenda. The pedophilia category can be added, unless you have evidence to say that the it is a controversy. It is not utter nonsense, as AFA are most concerned about the homosexual agenda promoting pedophilia. I did not, and I assure you I will not present those items as fact. I will follow WP recommendations and policies on those points as always. Hal Cross 07:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The fact that they hold those views is already clear from what's in the article. Your text adds nothing new except supportive wording, which is definitely not NPOV. The category you propose to add is ludicrous and does not make the point you think it does. Orpheus 08:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it is not clear at all, and keeping those specific views out of the article is information suppression. Please stop suppressing information. Regarding the pedophilia category, I am not trying to make a point by disruption.  I have always said that if a category is uncontroversial then it can go in. Its clearly relevant and you have not shown any evidence of controversy and as such, it can apply in this case.  Hal Cross 08:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I have no problem at all with stating that it is an organizational position. I think the "believe" issue is a moot point, but I am flexible on that, and again, I have no problem with stating the AFA uses the bible as one of their sources of support. Hal Cross 07:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFA views on the homosexual agenda 

message: Regarding: these edits: "states they must speak out against the acceptance of sin, and oppose the homosexual movement's efforts to convince society that homosexual behavior is normal, as they believe it may lead to the normalization of what they believe is even more deviant behavior" - This sentence implies homosexuality is a sin and is unnatural; wording opinion as fact and POV pushing is not consistent with Wiki Policy. Also, these edits removed the reference to ex-gay activism (supported by a source); this should not have been deleted because it is a large part of AFA’s activism regarding homosexuals. I reverted these edits and slightly re-worded the paragraph to read better. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 22:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi CMMK, firstly, I didn't remove anything about ex-gay activism. I understand what you are saying about implications, though I don't think your objections warrant such a massive reversion  because my edits are all supported by the source whether you like them or not. I will nevertheless take into account your objections in my next adjustment. Hal Cross 06:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I see now you did not remove the reference to ex-gays; my mistake. The massive reversion you reference of is merely the version before you edited it with a few changes, such as removing some excess words. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 18:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by Hal Cross 

message: Would that be considered successful or unsuccessful?  WAVY 10 16:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, Wavy, and welcome. What is a successful boycott?  From what I understand, if they managed to create a significant boycott (they definitely boycotted something), then its a success, no matter what the reaction of the company or the law.  The terms may need some adjustment in the article. I'll have a think about how to do that. Hal Cross 06:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would only classify a boycott successful if it has success, not only if they "managed to create a significant boycott." For example, the Walden Books boycott was obviously unsuccessful, even though it was "significant.” —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 18:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Success or non-success is POV. This is only one of the problems that has to be sorted out regarding the POV that has been troubling the article.  If there is a view that there is a success, then we can state it. And if there is a view that AFA are continuing the boycott, then that can also be stated.  The fact is, AFA have made statements saying they are going to keep the heat turned up . Or do you have a specific objection to continued boycotts being presented, CMMK?Hal Cross 07:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kmart boycott (1990) 

message: Enough with the edit warring, please!  WAVY 10 14:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Too right, Wavy. Its probably high time for dispute resolution. Hal Cross 14:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit War

message: In the first paragraph, it says that the AFA "supports equal rights for homosexuals", while the article goes on to describe the AFA's various crusades against homosexuals and quote them as saying that homosexuality is wrong, etc.
Obviously, some hack's trying to push a POV, but failed so hard that even I could see it (not to mention the fact that extreme conservatives aren't known for their support of gay rights).
172.129.31.51 18:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Merely from reading what you just wrote and not much else, it appears you have argued a non sequitur.  You say "extreme conservatives aren't known for their support of gay rights" yet you complain the page talks about how the AFA's "supports equal rights for homosexuals."  Equal rights and gay rights are different words and likely different concepts, so I see no inconsistencies of which you are complaining.  It is possible to support equal rights while not supporting gay rights, and vice versa.  Would you please clarify?  --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 12:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not possible to support equal rights if one does not support gay rights, such as gay marriage, adoption, and non-discrimination policies. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 19:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the fuck? 

message: Regarding  9 September 2007 edits by Hal Cross, which I reverted:
*On the first sentence of the article, "…that promotes conservative Christian values" was deleted and "The AFA is a Christian organization, which admits to holding a Biblical worldview, and seeks to promote the truth found in the scripture" was added under the ‘Beliefs and goals’ section.
**This edit is completely unnecessary because: the AFA is a conservative Christian organization and that should be stated in the lead section; because the newly added sentence is too lengthy, when it can be summed up in one term, ‘conservative Christian values’; and because it is major WP:NPOV/WP:OR violation to assert the"scripture" is "the truth."
*"The organization defines itself as 'a Christian organization promoting the biblical ethic of decency in American society with primary emphasis on TV and other media'" was removed from the fourth sentence in the lead section and "intended to represent and stand for traditional family values, focusing primarily on the influence of television and other media – including pornography – on society" was added to the second sentence of the lead where "that promotes conservative Christian values" previously was.
**This edit is unnecessary because: pornography is assumed from the deleted AFA quote of "biblical ethic of decency" and because the AFA advocates traditional Christian family values, not merely "family values." A quote from the AFA seems sufficient enough and I don't think we need to paraphrase anything.
—Christopher Mann McKaytalk 19:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CMMK, all those deletions you made, were of verifiable and attributed statements straight from the AFA literature , and they presented a more neutral and concise lead section. Scripture wasn't mentioned there at all. There were no NPOV violations there whatsoever, even in the section lower down about scripture. Its a statement about the worldview of the AFA and is automatically attributed to the AFA and any reader will automatically not assume that scripture is absolute truth according to Wikipedia. I'll restore the information later and add more sourced information for support. Hal Cross 19:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hal Cross, the deletions you made ( & ) were of neutral verifiable and attributed statements. I removed your statements, because they were unnecessary, as explained above. You state "scripture wasn't mentioned there at all"? What about your addition of "promote the truth found in the scripture"? This statement is a WP:NPOV/WP:OR violation, as it inaccurately implies what the bible states is true; it doesn't matter if a Wikipedia reader will assume otherwise because the statement is still OR, as it is unproven. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 20:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CMMK, Its our job to report the views of the AFA. The views of the AFA are relevant on the AFA article. It is inevitable that their views will be reported. We are supposed to allow all relevant views even if we don't like them or believe them. Hal Cross 02:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS, hi CMMK, you attempted no discussion for your prior edits . I made an inclusive edit, and applied more care over the controversial category issue. I have found a lot more information on the issue of the homosexual agenda and pedophilia. Do you have any specific suggestions on how to present it long term? Hal Cross 15:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  CMMK, Its our job to report the views of the AFA - no, it isn't. We're writing an encylopedia article, not a press release. The objective is to present a neutral description of the American Family Association. That doesn't mean we need a complete copy of every viewpoint they have ever held. Orpheus 20:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting edits by Hal Cross 

message: Firstly some context: CMMK and user Orpheus seem to me to have put up quite a lot of resistance to the presentation of relevant and sourced AFA viewpoints: and have labeled the AFA as homophobic using categories during a long category dispute 
CMMK seems to have been quite dismissive of efforts to discuss , seems to think that stating sourced relevant statements is OR:
, and reverts instead of making simple alterations . 
Its very easy to Google for the figure of 200000 for the size of the organization: . Simply asking for a source would be constructive, rather than deleting it out of hand.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hal Cross (talk • contribs) 12:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hal Cross comments 

message: Hal Cross' edit (diff), removed "... that promotes conservative Christian values" from the first sentence. In Hal Cross' edit summary he states the statement he removed is "politicised"; however, I disagree. "Conservative Christian" is a neutral term that describes what type of organization the AFA is. Further, the sentence Hal Cross puts in place of the deleted sentence is "The AFA has over 200,000 members, with centers all over the United States," which is un-sourced. Even if the statement had a citation, it does not warrant the deletion of valid information, but should be placed in addition to the information already on the article. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 03:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christopher Mann McKay comments 

message: * i request each of you give references for the following:
** 200000 for the size of the organization - place reference/s here: *ref1* *ref2* *ref3* (fill in the refs that you can)
------------------
*
*Hal Cross 03:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  other comments 

message: There's a proposed consensus on the category issue, which takes the following form:
* Split some articles out of :Category:Homophobia into a subcategory (:Category:Homophobic violence). This addresses the issue of lumping the AFA in with physical violence, Nazis, etc etc.
* Open a CfD on renaming (not deleting) the homophobia category to something arguably less pejorative. ()
Both of these have been done, and the CfD was unfortunately speedy closed due to a previous attempt (). I think that the community has spoken loudly and clearly that this category is acceptable, and there has been ample evidence shown here that the AFA belongs in it. I believe that addresses all the objections that have been raised. Orpheus 20:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is too much consensus to keep, and for good reason I believe. Its not that the category needs deleting altogether, its simply the case that the category has been applied where it is inappropriate (controversial therefore against NPOV). As in the case of the AFA, it is inappropriate here and the subcat will also be inappropriate. Lists have always been an option because they offer you the opportunity to satisfy NPOV via annotation. Nobody has tried to deter you from using lists. Hal Cross 02:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is this "controversial therefore against NPOV"? Since when did WP:NPOV have anything to say about "controversial" categories? What proof do you have that states the AFA being involved in the subject of homophobia is controversial? Also, the sub-category was never suggested to be inserted in this article. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 03:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CMMK, this issue has been explained to you multiple times here and in the archives by more than one editor:.  It is the view of editors here that the category goes against NPOV because it is controversial and adding it without annotation circumvents NPOV policy. We have suggested that you use lists instead as they allow annotations and therefore allow at least some chance of NPOV policy being followed. Hal Cross 06:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is the view of editors here: No it isn't - it's your view. We've gone through this a dozen times - your reading of WP:CAT is far too narrow and your interpretation of WP:NPOV is simply wrong. You are the only one suggesting lists, and the consensus of the Wikipedia community is overwhelmingly that the homophobia category is appropriate. Orpheus 07:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a reminder . Its the categorization, not the category. Your insistence on the homophobia category is inappropriate, disruptive (as its controversial)  and unhelpful. Please stop dismissing Wikipedia guidelines. Hal Cross 04:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you reference this edit as if it has some sort of significance. You are misinterpreting things. Also, I have dismissed no guideline. Your accusations are unsubstantiated. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 07:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is highly relevant. You said above that it was only my view that there is problems with the categorization of AFA as homophobic. Clearly this administrator ☑ SamuelWantman also has problems with the labeling of the AFA as homophobic. You seem to have been behaving in a dismissive way for a long time, specifically regarding the application of reliable sources. You have said that the views of the AFA are unreliable. Well, they may not be the truth, but this is Wikipedia and we state facts about views, so dismissing the stated views of the AFA is utterly wrong. If we are to present an encyclopedic article here, the views of the AFA must be presented. Repeatedly deleting such views as you have done is against NPOV policy because you are disallowing the concept of all relevant views. I have not dismissed a single one of your comments and have worked flexibly with any suggestions. Clearly there is more information to present to the reader concerning the homosexual agenda and its effect on discrimination, pedophilia, indecency, and other such issues. I'll make the information as clear, verifiable, well explained and as reliably sourced as Wikipedia allows. Hal Cross 12:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hal Cross, you don't seem to understand. I have not violated WP:NPOV in any way and User:Sam said nothing about having "problems with the labeling of the AFA as homophobic." User:Sam was giving his opinion about labeling persons with the homophobia category. You are misinterpreting things; please understand this. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 17:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category 

message: I made a change  to the Hansen information as it seemed to be incorrect  . Orpheus, I believe this is the same sort of problem with other parts of this article, such as the issues the AFA are concened about . You may want it to say "abolish the NEA" but in fact the ref says prevent the NEA from getting funding. The AFA ref does not say Anti-abortion we are against abortion. Its says pro-life, and that is a broader set of issues involving a selection of concerns. Please try to allow all the main issues to be presented accurately. Hal Cross 03:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I changed eradicate (which has been there since the dawn of time with no objection from you) to abolish - purely a grammatical thing. If they did just lobby to have the funding increase denied, then that's what the article should say. I'm not entirely sure how this relates to abortion. Orpheus 04:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  On re-reading the article, the following quote springs out: 'The AFA's Web site boasts, "Since the AFA began asking Congress to eliminate funding for the NEA, the agency's funds have been reduced to $100 million per year."' So if the AFA is asking Congress to eliminate funding for the NEA, that's what the Wikipedia article should say. Duly amended. Orpheus 04:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with stating what is in the source. What is problematic is CMMK's insistence on removing the reasons behind the AFA's actions according to source . Hal Cross 06:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hanson ref

message: Regarding: "Calvin Klein bows to campaign critics". New York Times. 1999-02-19
Please provide the author and page number of the article. Thank you.—Christopher Mann McKaytalk 05:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The specific author is: The Globe and Mail. Toronto, Ont.: Feb 19, 1999. pg. A.3 New York Times Service. ISSN 03190714 Hal Cross 06:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New York Times source 

message: Hello Orpheus. You removed a large section here  which of course means that you have suppressed those sourced views once again.  To my knowledge all objections, no matter how petty, have been answered. Your edit summary is entirely unhelpful. If you would like to explain exactly which parts you consider OR, or which have been unanswered, then reply here or on my talkpage. Hal Cross 11:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Orpheus 18:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of a large section of AFA views especially concerning homosexual agenda and pedophilia