Talk:American Family Association/Archive 1

message: I deleted this:
In the March 2005 issue of American Family Association Journal, the American Family Association author Randall Murphree suggested that a Jewish upbringing leads to hatred of Christians, and by extension, a criminal lifestyle. 
Because I was unable to substantiate it.  If you go the web site and look in the archive, there is no article by or quote from Randlall Murphree regarind Jewish upbringing or hatred of Christians.
: I did a google search, and turned up , which quotes from Murphree's article.  My read is that someone is INFERRING, from Murphree's description of one Jewish guy, what Murphree thinks of Jews in general.  I think the inference is not warranted, at least based on the excerpt that was quoted. So I agree that the deletion, above, is correct.  John Broughton 17:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish upbringing = Crime 

message: Ive seen a lot of people online interchanging american family association with american family foundation. Are they one and the same?
: No.  John Broughton 14:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Family Foundation 

message: I don't see references for some of the statements in the controversial statements section. I think we need references, to ensure accuracy, or some items should be removed. DavidBailey 11:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  I also cleaned up the wording to be more accurate.  ChristopherM 22:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. DavidBailey 20:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial statements 

message: The current poll regarding an issue related to this article is now closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as a new section of the article's talk page).
Last issue: Talk:Christmas controversies/Merge proposal
Tuxide 21:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:Christmas controversies/Merge proposal]]

message: Since there's been no objections, I'm removing the IKEA controversy for lack of evidence (i.e. the writer found an article on the AFA website that he/she thought was controversial and explained why they thought so). In reference to the above discussion, I'm moving the GSA controversy to the "Activism" section, as I checked its source and found the article to be pro-GSA, and the story was not something that was picked up by any major media source. If every little dispute between the AFA and opposing groups were labeled as "controversies" and added here, the article would be ten times as long as it is now. Finally, I'm removing the Scott Lively reference for lack of citations and because this article is about the AFA in general, not about one of its fifty affiliated state groups. You wouldn't find a reference to CA governor Grey Davis' recall election in the United States article (trust me, I checked). If the person who included this want it to be included, then they can create a seperate article about either Scott Lively or AFA's California division and put the info there.Citadel18080 01:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great work.  The article is looking more encyclopedic and less rantish.  --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 01:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. For the record, I also removed the two statements under the IKEA controversy, as it appears that these were untentionally bunched together with IKEA into one paragraph. The mention of the ACLU was moved to "Activism" while the mention of prefabricated surveys was removed entirely because it appeared to be more of an attack on the AFA than serious encyclopedic writing.Citadel18080 02:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miscellaneous Changes 

message: Since there is a dispute about this text, I am going to move it here for the time being:
"AFA California leader Scott Lively is a co-author of The Pink Swastika which claims that many leaders in the German Nazi regime, including Hitler himself, were homosexual."
Like most of the deplorable Controversy section that was here before, this particular controversy is not sourced (i.e. no news artice from a prominent, recognized news source labels it as such), and Wikipedia does not allow this type of original research in its articles. I quote from the afore-linked policy:
"Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be accompanied by a reliable source. Material that counts as "original research" within the meaning of this policy is material for which no reliable source can be found and which is therefore believed to be the original thought of the Wikipedian who added it. The only way to show that your work is not original research is to produce a reliable published source who writes about the same claims or advances the same argument as you."
This is why I have moved the text here. Unless someone can produce a viable source referring to this as a controversy, it does not belong in the article. The same can be said of the Keith Ellison piece--not one of the sources mentions the AFA by name as being involved in the dispute. I am leaving that where it is for now to avoid being accused of POV but, really, it needs a source, too.Citadel18080 21:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put it back in the article with two sources. I am really surprised someone would consider a book, "which claims that many leaders in the German Nazi regime, including Hitler himself, were homosexual and claims eight of the top ten serial killers in the US were homosexuals" as not controversial. Statements only have to have citations if it is likely someone will challenge them, but it seems like on this article you challenge things as OR when most people would consider it common knowledge. It seems strange you would rather have this statement removed and spend time debating it on the talk page rather than finding a citation on google (take less than 5 minutes), which would improve the article. —Christopher Mann McKayuser talk 02:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You cannot simply decide that something is controversial without properly citing it first. Were the remarks in Lively's book open to controversy? Absolutely. Was there an actual controversy surrounding them? Yes, now that I've seen the evidence. Remember what the original research article says, "The only way to show that your work is not original research is to produce a reliable published source who writes aout the same claims or advances the same argument as you." The burden of proof was not on me, but on the person who published the statement in this article, and whoever that was did not initially include a citation. In fact, I did do some checking, searching Google News and its archives for "American Family Association controversy". I found no recent stories, and only incidents in the archives in which the AFA was the accuser, and was not being accused. Those types of incidents belong in the "Activism" section. Now that you've provided a citation for the Scott Lively incident, I will not revert the edit, but please understand that any incident in which the "controversy" has been inferred by the writer without citing a reliable outside source is fair game for deletion or discussion on the talk page.Citadel18080 03:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed Text 

message: Folks, we're not getting anywhere. Even if this article goes into mediation or arbitration, it would take weeks or months to resolve it, and I doubt we'd get anywhere with discussion in that period of time. Therefore, I propose that we agree on a temporary solution to the debate which none of us will revert for a period of one month. Doing so will give the Request for Comment time to garner a few responses. If, in a month, we still don't agree, we can extend the agreement indefinitely to allow for mediation or arbitration. Here is my proposal for a temporary solution:
*Remove the categories (remember, this isn't the permanent version)
*Add a new bullet point in the "Criticism" section stating, "Newspapers and other publications have described the AFA as advocating homophobia, censorship, and discrimination." Orpheus, I haven't read all of your sources, but I expect that they would make good citations here.
If you agree to the one month "cease-edit", please say so. Citadel18080 18:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SO --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 19:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm in favour of keeping the article the way it was before this edit war was sparked off. In summary, Censorship and Discrimination in, Homophobia out. That version of the article stood for many months - I think it's fair to leave it at that while we reflect. Orpheus 20:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Something that's wrong in an article is wrong whether or not it's been around for many months.  Length of time does not immunize false information. Your suggestion that it does is further evidence of your efforts to ensure the page reflects your personal views instead of the truth. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 22:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not suggesting it be left that way forever, merely that if you want to have a "one month truce" then the original, pre-edit war version of the article would be the most appropriate to leave in place during that time. Orpheus 05:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't agree with this, as I believe :Category:Homophobia should be on this article, as there is no policy violation is having this. —Christopher Mann McKayuser talk 05:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would like to see the result of the CfD before I commit to agreeing with that, and in any case until consensus is reached I stick to the principle that the categories should remain as they have been. Orpheus 07:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The CfD overwhelming was a keep. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 18#Category:Homophobia. Are you still opposed to not including this category? If so, why? —Christopher Mann McKayuser talk 15:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The arguments given in the CfD debate are persuasive, and if there's at least one or two reliable sources labelling the AFA as homophobic, then I support including it in that category. Before the cries of "pejorative name" come up - read the CfD discussion, and realise that it's a description, not an accusation. Some people are proud to be homophobic and as a libertarian I say more power to them. Orpheus 16:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  Christopher Mann McKay, I didn't post this section to rehash the debate. You've made your position quite clear. Orpheus, I don't see consensus being reached anytime soon. That is why I want to suspend editing/debating the category topic for a month. I can't remember the exact policy/guideline at the moment, but I do remember Wikipedia recommending that disputed text be moved to the talk page. Since we obviously can't move categories, I beleive that moving homophobia, dsicrimination, and censorship to the criticism section is entirely approriate as a temporary solution. This way, the disputed material remains on the page, but not in the categories. To use a cliche, everybody wins. Citadel18080 07:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temporary Halt to Discussion 

message: The References section needs fixing.  Just look at it.  I'm talking about its appearance from a visual point of view, not factual.  --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 02:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not just visual... Having an expanded reference section helps the reader know where the cited information is comming from without clicking on every link. It also helps in finding links via Internet Archieve if the link becomes broken. I finished expanding the reference tags, so it should be good now. —Christopher Mann McKayuser talk 19:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The references section needs fixing 

message: Article covering details of the AFA's campaign against homosexuality by the Southern Poverty Law Center was removed from "external links" - I'm including it here because it's a useful reference, but not a good candidate for "External Links" (which should be general in nature, as the edit summary suggested). It would make a good citation that the AFA supports controversial ex-gay programmes. Orpheus 04:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, how nice it is when we all work together.  --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 21:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The second reference is not wikiworthy and needs to be removed. In the first place, it's just plain wrong, referring to Wildman as a "Fundamentalist." He's a United Methodist minister, for goodness sake! If he were a Fundamentalist, the first thing he'd do is leave the denomination. Secondly, it's using a critic to provide the definition of the group - which is not neutral. Pollinator 23:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the second referenced and replaced it with one from ACLU and one from AFA themselves. I included the one from ACLU if the AFA link goes dead in the future, which happens often on Wikipedia. —Christopher Mann McKayuser talk 01:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  Pollinator: fundamentalist in colloquial usage doesn't necessarily match the strict denominational definition you're using. See the first section of Fundamentalist Christianity, or Fundie for a less charitable view. I'm happy to leave the term out of the article though. Orpheus 02:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed link 

message: I want to reference how the AFA's attempt to prevent the  NEA from funding a controversial artist who focused on AIDS and homosexuality resulted in the AFA violating the New York Artists' Authorship Rights Act, but I don't know what section to put it under. Would it be considered criticism or controversy, or should I put it under activism, as the AFA violated this act by mailing out pamphlets out in support of restricting NEA funding to Wojnarowicz? Any ideas? Thanks. —Christopher Mann McKayuser talk 19:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How did the AFA violate the act? Citadel18080 04:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/doc6.html lays it out pretty comprehensively. I'd put it under controversy, as it was an AFA action that was disputed and challenged. Orpheus 05:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks good. My only recommendation is that the conclusion of any case mentioned in the article be included. In the case above, one claim by  Wojnarowicz was upheld and the other two dismissed. I recommend that the conclusion of American Family Association v. City and County of San Francisco also be mentioned. Unfortunately, I don't have time right now to make those additions myself. Citadel18080 06:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sometime in the next few days I will create a wikipedia article for American Family Association v. City and County of San Francisco, then a user can click on the case for more information. I'll also add a short sentence about the outcome of the case on this article. —Christopher Mann McKayuser talk 21:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Much appreciated. Citadel18080 22:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wojnarowicz v. American Family Association 

message: I've found a web page where the AFA lists their mission statement, philosophical statement, and the specific areas in which they focus their advocacy. I would like to replace the text in the goals section with a summary of this material in order to provide the most accurate description of the AFA's point of view. Here is my proposed replacement text:
:The AFA believes that the Bible contains the absolute truth of God and is the authority to which all men are divinely judged. "...a culture based on biblical truth best serves the well-being of the country, in accordance with the vision of our founding fathers."
:Mission Statement: "The American Family Association exists to motivate and equip citizens to change the culture to reflect Biblical truth."
:The organization lists several areas in which it advocates its philosophy and mission statement:
:*Preservation of the Marriage and Family
:*Decency and Morality
:*Sanctity of Human Life
:*Stewardship
:*Media Integrity
Any thoughts? Citadel18080 00:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suport expanding the Goals section with the information you referenced above; however, I don't think you should replace the text already in the article. The first sentence of the current goals section states, "...focuses on addressing the influence of media, including pornography, on those values" and the second sentence explains how goals are pursued. Both of these sentences I feel are important to have in this article. Also, I think we should try to avoid having information in bullet form, unless it is absolutely needed. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 01:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that's valuable information as well, but I agree with Christopher that it should complement what's there already rather than replace it. Personally, I think it would be a bit POV just to use the AFA as a source for that section - good to have a bit of balance. Orpheus 01:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes.  I'm just honoring the 1 month rule. Those POV categories have got to go.  There remain other problems. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 02:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The article in general needs a massive cleanup. With regard to using just the AFA in the "Goals" section, that was my point. When people read the "Goals" seciton of the AFA article, they expect to read what the AFA itself seeks to accomplish, not what we say it accomplishes. As for NPOV, as long as it is made clear that the material comes from the AFA website, there is no problem. I think that the text that is currently there would make an excellent intro to the "Activism and Viewpoints section, which itslef requires either cleanup or a seperate article. Citadel18080 17:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Let me expand what I just wrote. Since "Activism and Viewpoints", as it is now, is a jumbled mess with infinite room for expansion and little criteria regarding what should stay and what should go, I'd like to recommend that a seperate article or list be created detailing the AFA's activism efforts. The text currently in that section could organized and moved to the seperate article while the text currently in the "Goals" section could serve as a concise summary of "Activism and Viewpoints" in the main article. Citadel18080 18:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Goals" Section 

message: HELP! Christopher Mann McKay refuses to work with other wiki editors and continues to steamroll over them, including newbies, and over wiki policies, practices, procedures, whatever.  THE VANDALISM IS PERSISTENT!  SOME ADMINISTRATOR PLEASE BLOCK THE VANDAL, BUT FOR A MINIMUM AMOUNT OF TIME, LIKE 8 HOURS.  I think that will help him to understand wiki policy trumps soapbox policy. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 00:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You continue to violate WP:CIVIL policy by calling for someone to ban me. I've previously explained to you numerous times that talk pages are for discussing changes or improvements to the article and not for complaining about Wikipedia users who have edited the article; if you have a problem with me, you need to contact an administrator and keep your rants about me off this article. Here is the link to get administrator assistance: Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 02:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that policy page made my brain hurt. I just don't want to go through that process.  You are already a substantial drain on me.  That is why I am crying out for help.  I have more important things in life to do.  However, some administrators may find stopping you from discouraging newbies and anyone who disagrees with you is the most important thing to them.  Everybody's different, you know.  I'm hoping one of them will see this and see your never-ending soapbox edits and the relentless attacks again and again in the style you continually use.  Did you apologize to that newbie yet for what you said to him?  I doubt it.  You know no limits to your insatiable appetite to vandalize pages, which is essentially what happens when one does the things you do in the manner in which you do it.  You may take pleasure in your success in defying editor after editor after editor and in trashing newbies, but you are defying wiki policy in a particularly egregious manner, almost sociopathic, and eventually your behavior and mistreatment of newbies and flouting of wiki guidance will land you in the cross-hairs of the wiki powers that be.  Until that happens, I might as well give up editing here as edits with which you personally disagree are persistently tossed out by you despite what other editors say or do in an effort to compromise.  You are relentless in your point of view edits.  When you are asked for sources, you point to a dictionary.  When a newbie tries to help you cut out the legs from under him.  When several editors try to work together you insist on doing it your way in a fashion that is infuriating person after person after person over long spans of time.  I am certain wikipedia does not want vandals like you to create a permanent acrimonious environment as you have that effectively shoos away editors who try to follow wiki guidance.  You'll start spouting again about how I should not say this here, your standard answer, but you will continue to gut the newbies, ignore the community, insert your vandal-like edits, insert your original research about how the AFA is the mother of all evil and you can prove it, and on and on and on.  Well I am pretty much discouraged at this point.  I will not be participating here anymore until someone tells me an administrator has returned wiki policy to this page and people are allowed to edit in harmony again without the Christopher Mann McKay overlord flouting wiki policy on an hourly basis and chasing away editors wikipedia is trying to attract.  So have at it.  Rewrite the page so that the AFA is the most heinous evil organization you know in your own original research that it is.  Have fun.  When I hear you have been blocked from your relentless attacks, then I may again decide to partake in this effort.  In over 3,300 edits I have made over a long period of time, I have never seen anyone as mean spirited and wiki defiant as you are. Congratulations, you have effectively chased me off one of your pages. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 03:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism by Christopher Mann McKay Requires Blocking 

message: Hello. I am providing a section here to discuss the wide range of possible categories to add to the article. Verifiability seems to be a key issue here as things can only be added to the article if there is sufficient evidence presented. Thus, the categories under discussion have been removed from the article. If you wish to add any category, there is a set of requirements that have to be met before having them in the article. So please discuss here first. Thank you. Hal Cross 12:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are those requirements in your opinion? There's pages and pages of discussion about the categories, and in my opinion, the article should be left the way it is while they are discussed. The categories (with the exception of homophobia) are not recent additions. They've been in the article for a long time, and nobody has made a convincing case why they should be removed. My position on why they should stay is laid out above at excruciating length, so the discussion ball is now in your court. Orpheus 14:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Orpheus, with all due respect, this article was in shambles a long time before the category dispute began. You can't deny that it contained information that was unverified, inaccurate, and which protrayed the AFA in a largely negative light. The categories in question are a prime example. Citadel18080 17:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure, and I have no problem with the article being worked on. I disagree that the categories are an example though - would you say that being in the Discrimination category casts Jane Elliot in a negative light? The categories themselves are succinctly titled precisely to avoid pushing a particular POV. "Discrimination" and "Censorship" are both neutral, factual terms. I agree that "Pro-censorship" would be a POV category, but we're not talking about that. Orpheus 03:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Orpheus. You seem to have sidestepped the main issues. Categories are there to help the reader browse articles that help explain NPOV compliant concepts surrounding their subject. Thus, the censorship category should include articles such as Book Burning, Suppression of dissent and similar. There are no such concepts in this article. Any reader browsing censorship related concepts will see your inclusion and conclude that AFA is about censorship per se. Wikipedia is not allowed to say that AFA is about censorship.  There may be some views on that matter, but to classify it under censorship would be against NPOV policy. As the policy states very clearly "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category.". Its as simple as that. There is a controversy about the categories that you keep forcing onto the article. Your edits seem to be working very strongly against WP ruling. Hal Cross 04:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Categories are not created solely "to help the reader browse articles that help explain NPOV compliant concepts surrounding their subject." You said, "Wikipedia is not allowed to say that AFA is about censorship"; however, it is a fact that AFA advocates/supports censorship and Wikipedia articles are allowed to state facts. Stating a fact through placing a category is in no way a violation of WP:NPOV and the WP:CAT article you quoted is not a policy. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 05:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You think its a fact that the AFA practices these things. It's really more like an opinion. You may not agree with WP:CAT Guideline 8, but many others do. That's why its been there for almost three years. Citadel18080 21:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to not know the difference between a fact and an opinion. Did you read #Summary of argument in opposition of removal of categories? If you read that section, you would see these categories are facts supported by reliable sources. Re: WP:CAT, many editors don't agree with guidelines and even an administrator told me guidelines are controversial and a lot of editors ignore them because they aren’t policy and are not always reached by consensus. Guidelines are there to guide, they are not rules, or policy; they are simply suggestions. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 19:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of categories

message: Orpheous just removed what someone (209.86.73.147 - first edit ever) just added:
:"AFA does not do lobbying. They have no lobbying presence in Washington DC. This has been expressly prohibited by Don Wildmon. I talked to him in 2000 and it has not changed.  Steve Ulrich AFA of PA Associate Board Member"
Thought I would post that here for people to consider / investigate / include if it is worthy.  --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 04:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good call - it should be on the talk page. Orpheus 04:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFA of PA apparently responds via 209.86.73.147 

message: The recent addition about the senate prayer incident is a pretty good example of the one-sided demonization that has constantly been part of this article.
Of all the news sources that could have been picked, the one cited is the most extreme and it is quite inaccurate, as well. Some of the more serious problems are:
*1. The article cited is full of inflamatory statements - pretty poor journalism at least. Even the Al Jazeera article is an improvement. It is slanted a bit, but at least it avoids the rhetoric of the cited article.
*2. The cited article misidentifies the American Family Association as "Fundamentalist" which it is not. Widemon is a member of the United Methodist Church, certainly a part of its conservative wing, but mainline nonetheless, and certainly not fundamentalist, because, if he were, he would leave that denomination.
*3. The article claims the protestors were members of the AFA, which is not confirmed in other news sources. They actually said they were members of Operation Save America/Operation Rescue. Many news stories do not even mention AFA, but those who do generally say that the association had asked its members to e-mail and write letters to Congress.
Liberal journalists sought out and got quotes such as Barry Lynn, of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, who used the occasion to attack the Christian right for "intolerance."
Conservative journalists quoted Tony Perkins, of the Family Research Council, who commented on the issue rather than the protesters, noting that the God America refers to in the pledge, our national motto, and other places is clearly the monotheistic God of the Jewish and Christian faith. He also said that Hinduism is polytheistic and suggested that what the Senate did was to alter the national motto to "In gods we Trust."
Of course one has to read both sides to get the whole story. One key point is that three whackos, who did not follow AFA's suggestion, and who provoked an inappropriate protest, now are tools for left wing agencies, as well as some journalists, and some Wikipedia editors to demonize the Christian right. Pollinator 07:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done, Pollinator.  Now I ask, since you have proven that the AFA is not tied into that event, should it not be completely removed from the article? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 08:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I read your links.  I'm going to remove that paragraph.  Again, nice work. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 08:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think this source Hindu prayer in Senate disrupted should be included. The article throws in a mention of the AFA, which had nothing to do with the protest, making it look like the AFA was behind it. Further, the protest is not even mentioned in the AFA article. The link to the AFA "Action Alert" is more than sufficient. If there are no objections, I'm going to remove the Washington Post link. By the way, LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, thank you for copyediting that section. Citadel18080 19:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I object to removing the Washington Post reference because the ActionAlert link might go dead and the AFA article references nothing about the three protesters. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 20:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CMM said, "the AFA is anti-Hindu and is against religious tolerance."  I think that statement evidences quite clearly CCM's soapbox.  Exactly how is the AFA anti-Hindu?  Because it didn't want a Hindu prayer in a single location under the circumstance to which the ALA objected?  Hillary Clinton made fun of Hindus in a mocking voice joking about how Mahatma Gandhi runs all the gas stations, or something like that.  I think that is anti-Hindu, but you won't see that on Hillary's wiki page.  Yet here is CCM stating the AFA is anti-Hindu, and we are all supposed to believe CCM does not have a total and complete hatred for the AFA?  He then says the AFA is "against religious tolerance"?  Everyone better make sure this AFA-hater and loose cannon does not infect the page with his anti-AFA soapbox propaganda; indeed, that the very problem on this page.  CCM is right, and the AFA is anti-Hindu, anti-tolerance, anti-homosexual, pro-censorship, pro-hate, heck even anti-CCM.  Is there no calumny CCM will not shovel onto the AFA without a single shread of evidence other than a dictionary?  An IP address recently added terrorism as another cat.  Was that a CCM sock puppet? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 22:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Senate prayer incident

message: I am improving the activism section. I have already found a lot of sources, but it will take me a week or more to integrate them into the article. I know the section currently looks disorganized, but I plan to improve it and differentiate between on-going protests, and past protests--further classifying as successful or un-successful. I am going to classify protests as successful, if the AFA claims they are successful, but I will explain if they aren’t truly successful; for example, in the P&G protest the AFA claimed success, but P&G claimed they still advertise on gay-related television shows and have not changed, so I would note this. Is anyone opposed to this or have any  suggestions for improving or formatting this section? —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 21:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, what criteria are we going to use for what does and does not go into this section? A good encyclopedia article provides a summary of the most prominent and important aspects of a topic. For example, the 9-year Disney boycott is more important than the complaints about the movie Shark Tale in a concise summary. We do have other options, such as a seperate list of boycotts and other activism activities, but if we want to keep the "Activism" section in the article, I would recommend keeping the mentions of specific incidients small (i.e. one sentence, maximum, with sourced analysis) in order to keep the entire article a reasonable length. If you want to post some of your sources here, please do so, and we can split the workload. Citadel18080 22:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, any activism should be under this section, but I'm unsure if the "Shark Tale" comments should be under this section, because I'm not sure if that is considered activism or just the AFA's stance on a certain movie; I am not opposed to moving it to a different section. I don't think we should limit descriptions of the boycotts to one sentence; IMO, having two or three sentences is not too much. If the section becomes too long, I can always make a separate article called something like "Activism by the American Family Assoication" and summarize that article under the ‘Activism’ section on this article. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 22:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Activism 

message: Greetings, FeloniousMonk and KillerChihuahua. I would like to make a few clarifications since this talk page has become somewhat immense, and I'm not sure how much of the you've had time to read. FeloniousMonk, you mentioned to LegitimateAndEvenCompelling on Talk:American Family Association that, "You may dispute the categories, but your dispute appears groundless to myself and other given the available sources." I suggest that you read this. The categories were first removed by User:Pollinator who, like both of you, is an administrator. I am of the opinion that articles about controversial topics like the AFA should be written as close to Wikipedia policy and guidelines as possible. WP:CAT Guideline 8 states that, "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." I have repeatedly suggested to Christopher Mann McKay and Orpheus that accusations of Censorship, Discrimination, and Homophobia could be included in lists or the aptly named "Criticism" section of the article either permanently or as a temporary compromise while we waited for other methods of dispute resolution to work their way through the system, but have repeatedly been refused. As for mediation, if people don't want it, then we won't do it. I for one, however, am sick and tired of reiterating my arguments ad infinitum and would like to see this dispute resolved, through arbitration, if necessary. What are you're thoughts? Citadel18080 21:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Arbitration is not applicable for article content disputes. This is a content dispute. I am here not to play referee, but to suggest to LAEC that he attempt a more productive approach to his interactions with fellow editors. I have given no opinion on the content dispute. Mediation is almost certainly premature. I suggest you start a new section, and discuss only the disputed categories and whether they are applicable to this article. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Previously there have been multiple sections discussing only the categories and that has gotten us nowhere (no one has changed their stance on the issue). If there are any new arguments under this proposed section then I will participate in the discussion; however, I do not wish debate any augments previously discussed, as I don’t believe that will be constructive. I have already clearly stated my argument under #Summary of argument in opposition of removal of categories and others have clearly stated their opinions. I'm not sure there is much else to do, but to wait for third-party comments. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 00:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. KillerChihuahua, since you appear to be a neutral third party and an experienced administrator, how would you suggest we go about resolving this dispute? I'm not asking you to play referee, I just want to figure out the best way to proceed. Please keep in mind that we have been discussing this for about a month and have thus far gotten no responses on the RfC, which has been up for about three weeks. Citadel18080 01:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Due largely no doubt to the problem that ever section begun seems to almost immediately go off topic and even into personal attacks. However: I still suggest a new section be started, paste your reasoning if you must. Any posts which are not about the two categories, move to another section, or remove completely if they are nothing but personal attacks. Until the chaff is seperated from the wheat, it is unclear what the next step should be. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: This is rather vague, please try to be concise and clear. Which category "must" go? Please refrain from unhelpful comparisons with pejoratives which are not categories, and commentary about what Wikipedia is Not (unless this applies 'directly to the category objection.) KillerChihuahua?!? 12:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The future of this article 

message: Hi. Noticed the infobox is for a company; there is an infobox for non-profits located at Template:Infobox NPO. Thought ya'll might like to know. ZueJay (talk) 00:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much. I tried to find that template, but I was unsuccessful. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 00:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, its kinda buried - took me a while to find it too. I actually modified it once I found it. I don't think it gets used a whole lot. Enjoy ;) ZueJay (talk) 00:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox