Talk:American Family Association/Archive 4

message: In my effort to bring the article closer to featured article status, using the Islam article as an exemplar, I have added more belief related information to the belief and goal section . Please offer input or suggestions here. Hal Cross 11:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Orpheus. You just deleted the new and more comprehensive belief section . Now I am not going to say your actions are dismissive again, but you did rather say that it had been discussed "per lengthy talk page discussion" in your edit summary. Now I think you would have to admit that is not entirely accurate. Firstly there is more information there, and it is in a very different context. None of those things have ever been discussed. Furthermore, as per usual, and similar to CMMK's edit summary comments, you do not make adjustments, you simply delete without any suggestions on how to improve or adjust. Perhaps you would like to come back to the land of the living in terms of Wikipedia talkpage discussion? Or not! Hal Cross 16:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ,  and . Orpheus 17:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Orpheus, posting such links isn't helping anyone. All objections have been dealt with, and new material is presented. This version  is far more encyclopedic than the one you keep insisting upon . Narrowing the views and suppressing their reasoning really is against NPOV policies. You are really not helping the article move towards featured article status. Please refrain from dismissing sourced relevant views, and please stop dismissing my efforts to accommodate NPOV policies.  Hal Cross 19:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More comprehensive belief section

message: Regarding the new material posted:
* The Yahoo "action alert" is years out of date (2001 - hardly current). At best it should go in former (unsuccessful) boycotts, but we don't really need a comprehensive list of every boycott ever suggested by the AFA.
* The research by Paul Cameron is not published in a reputable, reliable academic journal and is therefore not a reliable source in this context. Additionally, Paul Cameron is a thoroughly discredited former psychologist who has been expelled by the American Psychological Association  and censured by four professional organisations and a federal court. The Freund & Watson link does not suppport what you have written in the text.
* The bit about the AFA being under attack by the "homosexual community" is a slanted version of what's already in the article and is unnecessary.
Orpheus 07:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Yahoo information is supported by multiple citations. The Research by Cameron is what the AFA uses to support their views, Freund and Watson is also used by the AFA to support their beliefs. Yes the AFA has their own slant on criticism of themselves and that is their view.  Removal of such reliably sourced views results in such relevant views being suppressed and thus bias is introduced to the article . I am allowing all relevant views. You have disallowed specific AFA views giving the reason that the AFA is slanted. Wikipedia acknowledges that all have their viewpoint.  I refer to you the basic point of NPOV, a simple formulation . I also urge you towards an article that is closer to a featured article status. That involves adding an encyclopedic level of information to the article, rather than restricting it or narrowing it in information towards any particular bias. I have been adding information that comes from the beliefs of the AFA according to reliable sources. Their beliefs and reasoning needs to be presented in full if NPOV is to be allowed. You seem to be perpetually disallowing such information against the basic goals of Wikipedia - to present encyclopedic articles. I have not once removed or disallowed any reliably sourced critical information. In fact I have just added critical information. Please go back to NPOV policies, re-read and come back to this article with a fully informative encyclopedic article in mind. Hal Cross 09:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take your own advise and try to write "an article that is closer to a featured article status." Maybe you should read WP:IA and WP:FACR because your edits are not moving the article "closer to a featured article status." You continue to ignore any constructive criticism of your in inappropriate edits and you continue to accuse others of policy violations when they have not violated any policy; this is also very bothersome. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 02:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you care to give any specifics on your objections, rather than dismissively delete, I think your comment above may mean something. As it is your comment just looks like smoke. Please offer constructive comments on the specifics of the material rather than me or your feelings about WP editing. I refer to your comments and your deletions and not to you. Hal Cross 03:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your "WP editing" is directly related "to your comments and your deletions," which are made by you...—Christopher Mann McKaytalk 03:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CMMK your comment is unconstructive. You have still not explained your objections to the sourced material in question. For example, please explain why you object to the sourced and supported AFA views on the link between homosexuality and pedophilia being presented into the article. Hal Cross 10:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New material 

message: Orpheus. You have once again removed this information from the beliefs and goals section .To my knowledge it is all reliably sourced, adds information to the article and is relevant to beliefs and goals. Despite your edit summary, your reasons for removing the information are still totally unclear. Please explain your reasons for removing each piece of information in turn. Hal Cross 02:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly there is a need to improve the beliefs and goals section. What are your suggestions? Hal Cross 11:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've already made them, below. Orpheus 15:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Encyclopedic information; Beliefs and Goals

message: This information was removed from the article:  . That’s a lot of information and a lot of explanation of AFA views. Removing the information creates a POV fork. Again it suppresses the views of the AFA for specific issues. I see nothing wrong with re-organizing or adding to it, but removing it suppresses encyclopedic information about the views of the AFA. 
Also, this information is relevant to the boycotts section:  The AFA have expressed concern that Yahoo is encouraging pedophilia by providing sites that contain sexually explicit pictures of children (PR Newswire 2001) The AFA's are running a petition drive urging Yahoo! to eliminate all such pornography from its site.  Orpheus removed it saying its too old. The AFA is still here, Yahoo is still here, and Yahoo are still selling porn of all descriptions and it is still being viewed by pedophiles, homosexuals or any other category of porn viewer. It’s a relevant addition to the boycotts section, is current and ongoing. Feel free to offer any reason for why you don't want this information in the article. Hal Cross 02:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are your suggestions on the Yahoo issue? Hal Cross 11:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Same as they were the first time - it's not as notable as some of the other boycotts, so it's not a high priority to keep. They could have equally said the same thing about Google, or Comcast, or AOL, or Joe's Fish Shack, or any other company with a public ftp or web server that's been used to host porn. Orpheus 15:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AFA and Boycotts

message: CMMK, you added this to the article; . Do you have the actual press release from the AFA in this regard? Also, I am just wondering the sort of bias the statement has. To me it looks quite one sided. What do you think? Hal Cross 02:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are your suggestions on how to improve this piece of information? Hal Cross 11:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AFA responses to Katrina

message: CMMK, you removed this multiple sourced view . Please explain why you removed it? Hal Cross 03:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it not obivous? In addition to what Orpheus stated, Wikipedia is NOT a place to reference faulty studies just because the AFA journal did a news story on it.  It has no relevance... —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 03:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its an AFA view and you are not supposed to edit with reference to your OR on the correctness of the study. If you disagree that men seeking and engaging in sexual activities with boys is not a sort of homosexual behavior, I think the vast majority of the world would disagree with you. Its the sourced view that counts, rather than mine or your's. Its an encyclopedic fact and relevant to the homosexual agenda. Its a specific view from the AFA and is clearly stated. Its also neutrally stated and given with due context. Hal Cross 03:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Freund, K. & Watson, Vitagliano

message: I made some changes to the lead section as per WP:LEAD. . The article main body seems to be under attack specifically from some editors who are persistently removing the sourced views of the AFA. So I'm improving the lead as per  "relative emphasis in the lead should not reflect the body if the body is haphazard or missing critical information.". Feel free to discuss here Hal Cross 04:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to make a suggestion. Hal Cross 11:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Already did, below. Orpheus 15:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead section improvements

message: Orpheus and CMMK. You keep deleting the section on boycotts including the reasoning for those boycotts . That creates a POV fork. Here is the relevant section . It states:
*A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article.
You have been removing the information in a way that hides AFA viewpoints for why they are boycotting those particular companies. I have no problem at all with re-arranging the a viewpoints to make them more concise and information rich. But repeatedly removing them from the article is unacceptable POV pushing. Please stop deleting the sourced views of the AFA.  Hal Cross 12:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a list of boycotts. The article doesn't need to have a list of every single boycott the AFA has ever been involved in. It's fine to move that list to a sub-article which is linked using the main template. A POV fork is where you end up with two articles presenting different sides of an issue. That is not the case here. Orpheus 15:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe a sub-article isn't that bad an idea. I may create it if for no other reason to cease this latest squabble here. WAVY 10 15:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Wavy 10. I really have no objection to sub-articles or whatever as long as the views are presented clearly and encyclopedically. I am open to any of your suggestions and would really like some advice on how to proceed. Hal Cross 15:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Orpheus, you are dismissing WP regulations. Read it again, its just above in this section just a few paragraphs up next to the bullet point. Removing the large portion of the section is an attempt to evade NPOV policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Sure you can have the other article and I can fill it out with more details about why the AFA has boycotted those companies. But the specific views about specific companies and why they are boycotted have to be present in the main article itself, otherwise AFA views are suppressed. I can see a lot of ways to make that section richer and I will do that no matter how many times you try to remove the views of the AFA. Deleting those views is completely unacceptable, just as it says above. It removes encyclopedic information about the subject. It impoverishes the article. It weakens the knowledge content of the article. It disinforms the reader about specific views of the AFA. I would like to remind you yet again as you don't seem to have grasped this basic fact about encyclopedic editing on Wikipedia; All relevant views are to be presented. I am allowing all relevant views. Please watch more carefully and learn from me and other concerned Wikipedia editors and allow all relevant views. This point is really very important and I hope you will try your very best to understand at least this elementary concept fully before you make any more edits or comments on Wikipedia. I will be extremely happy to make that boycott section more concise and encyclopedic. I can present the rationales for why the AFA decided to boycott certain groups of companies very very clearly. There seems to be a lot of room for that. I doubt whether an anti-AFA editor will like the result though. Never mind, Wikipedia is not about what we like. Its about making a good encyclopedia. Hal Cross 15:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wavy 10, there is no need for two sub-sections on boycotts; one is sufficient. Having two sub-articles for boycotts would not "cease this latest squabble here." I have no idea what you meant by such a strange comment. Please elaborate. (diff)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher Mann McKay (talk • contribs) 23:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, having two sub-articles on boycotts really would be a POV fork! I don't think that's what WAVY10 was suggesting though - looks like a misunderstanding to me. It's an easy mistake to make with all the reverting going on. Orpheus 00:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Orpheus and CMMK. Some editors are doing their best to solve problems here. Your constant removal of relevant views requires that certain adjustments be made to the information and structure of presentation. As far as I can see, it looks like AFA views will inevitably be presented far more clearly than some would like. But thats what happens when extreme demands are made. If you want extra support for a particular view, more support and clarity will be found. As it is, the article is growing more clear and information rich in terms of AFA views, and I know its a real shocker, but the information is becoming more and more solidly supported, which makes deletionism all the more wrong. The facts about the homosexual agenda, obscenity, pedophilia, and the link between homosexuality and child molestation are not easy to countenance for some people. Those items will probably be removed by vandals and POV pushers for as long as this article exists. But Wikipedia has mechanisms and protections that can deal with any such agenda. And I am working on making such trouble as positive in outcome as possible. Hal Cross 02:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV forking

message: Please see Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Hal Cross and comment if you feel the urge. Orpheus 09:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, any feedback on how to better constructively edit here will be much appreciated. Hal Cross 10:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiquette 

message: What is wrong with using "Homophobia" as the section title? I see a NPOV violation in having "Accusations of homophobia," because "accuse" means to "charge with a fault or offense", so having "accusations" implies the AFA's homophobic views and actions are wrong or faulty. Homophobia, which means "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals" is used to describe the AFA actions for that sub-section, as all the info in that sub-section is related to homophobia--a neutral term that does not imply  something negative. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 10:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm happy with homophobia - the change I made was an attempt to come down the middle instead. "First amendment rights" is too much of a euphemism. Orpheus 11:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes having accusations does imply that anti-AFA views are faulty. Its inappropriate. So is using the term Homophobia. It implies that the AFA are homophobic. Stick with specifics. The specific controversy is over first amendment rights, from all POVs. Hal Cross 12:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No it isn't. The specific controversy mentioned is a private organisation labelling the AFA as intolerant for their opinions on gay rights. If it was the government telling them to put a cork in it, then it would be a first amendment issue. The first amendment doesn't apply to relations between private parties. Orpheus 13:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  To clarify, I'm talking about the CyberPatrol and SPLC parts of that section. The part about the SF city council is arguably first-amendment related, although the trial judge disagreed. Orpheus 13:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe the AFA v. SF reference be moved to the "Legal activism" section? Although SF was criticizing AFA, the reference is mainly dealing with legal activism by the AFA. Any objections to moving the AFA v. SF reference? —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 17:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds like a good solution to me - they initiated it, after all, so although it is controversy, it's arguably activism rather than criticism. Orpheus 17:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Activism sub-section: Homophobia 

message: Hi Cheeser1. I think I have the information sorted out now. I just added some to the article. Please check it for appropriateness concerning the selfpub policies . I'm open to all suggestions Hal Cross 03:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've just added different self-published sources into the article, besides the AFA. This isn't an improvement, even if the text is longer or if there are more citations. --Cheeser1 03:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks again Cheeser1. I'll put the other non self-pub refs in then. Hal Cross 03:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Selfpub compliant material and other sources

message: Looking at the lead and the beliefs section, there seems to be a fair bit of overlap. I think we should have a paragraph, two at the most above the title page which introduces the AFA and outlines briefly what they do and what they aim for, and then no "Beliefs & Goals" section. Thoughts? Orpheus 05:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There can be a beliefs section with a similar format to this featured article . It could be more concise in parts but basically organization is what is needed. It would also help to place the beliefs encyclopedically in relation to majority Christian beliefs, just to give it appropriate context. The goals part could be joined with the boycotts section and additional prayer activities, advice about legal rights, charity, and so on, can be added also. Hal Cross 05:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Islam is a religion with 1500 years of history and a billion adherents. The AFA is an advocacy group that wants less smut and swearing on television. I think there's a bit of a difference in approach! What's notable, and encyclopedic, is what the AFA do. What they say they believe is useful background material, but it shouldn't be the main focus of the article. Where they stand in respect to mainstream Christianity is a useful set of information to add, although one would first have to define mainstream Christianity - not an easy task. Orpheus 05:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a lot to be said about AFA in relation to their mainstream Christian beliefs. That will be very easy to determine with reference to the parts of the Bible the AFA and mainstream Christian groups refer to. Its how those beliefs are associated with the decency drive that is important. Christian groups have always had guidelines for how to deal with homosexual behaviour, bestiality, pedophilia, and so on, that involve prayer, chastity, and others that involve punishment as a deterrent. So there are comparisons and contrasts that will add useful context. AFA doesn't work on physically punishing such behavior as some other religions do, the AFA beliefs tend to use the concept of loving your neighbour and prayer for deliverance instead. Its an interesting subject and should enrich the article. Hal Cross 06:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's going to be very difficult to do that without any original research, but a comparison would be useful if you can find a well-sourced one to use. I don't really think that the AFA's views on bestiality and pedophilia are particularly notable. They're against them, like most of society, and I don't see any particular need to emphasise them in this article. Orpheus 07:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Orpheus, you seem to be making quite negative comments when it comes to presenting the views of the AFA. The information is all freely available on the web, and it can all be presented without any OR and without any spin.  Its inevitable that the pedophilia and bestiality issues will be presented as they are key reasons for the AFA voicing opposition to the homosexual agenda. Sure, the vast majority feel the same way, but its the specific views of the AFA that need to be presented if we are to avoid information suppression . I think most Wikipedia editors would see that as only fair. All relevant views and so on... Hal Cross 11:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not "inevitable" that the article has to include material on pedophilia and bestiality, and why the AFA thinks that having gay people out will inexorably lead to those things. What the AFA thinks on every issue isn't really encyclopedic - what's more important is what they do, and the opinions they hold that receive reliable third party coverage. Apart from aiming for a complete catalogue of their viewpoints, what's your reason for putting the material in? Orpheus 15:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are relevant views and when supported with reliable sources they explain not only what the AFA do, but they give views on reasons for why. Thats inevitable and encyclopedic.Hal Cross 16:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beliefs section 

message: Regarding: The AFA provides research and information on what they see as indecent influences, such as pornography, or what they refer to as the "homosexual agenda."[8][9]
:The first citation (8), published by the AFA, does not state the AFA provides "research and information" on "pornography." The second citation (9) does not state the AFA provides "research and information" on "pornography" or the "homosexual agenda." In fact, the second citation, which I found on ProQuest, is a 200-word article and the only part that mentioned the AFA is: But critics were unimpressed. Rev. Donald Wildmon, the president of the American Family Association in Tupelo, Miss., told Associated Press that the photo would appeal to pedophiles and was "nothing more than pornography." (the article was about a proposed Calvin Klein ad. showing two boys who appeared to be about 6, one clad only in jockey shorts, the other in boxers, standing on a sofa and arm-wrestling.)
:Should this sentence be deleted? I think it should, but I would like more input. Thanks. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 17:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. Appears to be a misrepresentation of what the sources say (and/or synthesis). --Cheeser1 17:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I said I'd apply better use of sources, and I will. Hal Cross 19:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Until you do, Hal, what you have qualifies as original research and has no place in this article. --Cheeser1 21:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the extra encouragement Cheeser1. Hal Cross 21:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead sentence and citations 

message: Hello Cheeser1. Concerning your statements . I believe I understand the situation here. 
*I believe there are 3 editors (including yourself) who want to have the homophobia category kept on the AFA article. And I have made the case that it is inappropriate because it goes against NPOV policies on the inclusion of all relevant views. 
*The AFA are not particularly likable by WP editors. The AFA are not politically correct. They are traditionalists. People accuse them of all sorts of things, most vocally because of their opposition to porn. Partly because of their fight against indecency. Definitely because they regularly criticize the media. And people tend to ignore their fight against pedophilia in preference for the support for homosexual "rights".
*The article often reflects that situation. You could say that the Web often reflects the world. But only the specifically interested part of it. 
*I am not from the US, and I am not homosexual, so I don't have any notable pre-conception about the AFA. To me they are a new subject that I chanced upon when browsing places to visit in the US.
Concerning your statements in particular.  I have not accused anyone of personal attack. I am abiding by consensus. I am (and always have been) discussing rather than kneejerk reverting. I havn't decided that any particular thing is inevitable, only that I believe some things are. I have supplied reliable sources (yesterday at least:) and definitely in the past despite never being acknowledged for it. I have even taken a break from editing in accordance with your own advice. You have asked me to come to consensus before editing. So I am working on coming to consensus. What else do you want me to do? Hal Cross 16:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a break. We've been having this discussion non-stop for days. If you're accusing us of bias because we all happen to agree, you're jumping to a very strange conclusion. Like I've said before, reliable sources establish that the group is anti-gay. To exclude this would violate WP:NPOV. Please keep the discussion of this topic on the talk page of that article. --Cheeser1 18:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am currently taking a break from editing the article because of your suggestion and all the stuff that has been going on there. You made comments about me on the talkpage of the AFA article, so instead of talking about matters not relevant to the article, I took my comments here. If you applied your very own categorization recommendations to the rest of Wikipedia, the cats would be full to the brim with unhelpful accusations. Hal Cross 19:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the last time Hal, this isn't an accusation. It is a label of "homophobic" applied to a group like the AFA, which is verifiably anti-gay. I suppose we shouldn't call Adolph Hitler a Nazi because it's an accusation?? Hal. Stop bringing content disputes here and stop making up policy. The fact that something can be construed as an accusation doesn't mean it's not allowed on Wikipedia. Don't feed me this nonsense about "full to the brim." Okay? --Cheeser1 20:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Or perhaps if you were/are homosexual? I find it mind-blowing that straight=neutral automatically, according to Hal. --Cheeser1 21:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why, but Hal Cross seems to think homosexuals are a group of people who make edits he disagrees with. For example, back in July, Hal Cross stated: "I'm sure there are going to be some queers who want to emphasize the cats" referring to the category dispute. In the past, Hal Cross’ edits to this article have shown his OR POV pushing regarding information on homosexuals. Obviously, Hal Cross has had neutrality problems himself; however, I guess he is trying to make it seem like that is not the case by implying others have "pre-conception about the AFA" when he claim he does not... —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 23:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice snapshot of my introduction to Wikipedia CMMK. To add a bit of balance I did actually deride people who bash homosexuals also. I have rather taken to civility since then. This information from Cheeser1's talkpage was intended as a discussion of editor matters, rather than content matters. I find it strange that I met Cheeser1 during a Wikiquette advice session, and this is one of the outcomes. Hal Cross 02:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not surprising at all - the seriously-disruptive edit warring, content disputes, and policy misunderstands related to this article would probably attract the attention of someone on the WQA. As everyone (except you) has said, much of what you add to this article is contentious (and you add things repeatedly, despite objections). Likewise, what you try to remove is properly sourced, and your reasons are generally inappropriate (as if "anti-gay" is an insult or accusation, instead of something verifiably used to describe this group). --Cheeser1 03:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheeser1. I believe we should keep editor related matters to personal talk pages and leave this talkpage to discussing the rather controversial subject of the AFA. Hal Cross 04:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But the reason we can't have a constructive discussion of the AFA article is because of editor related matters - specifically, your approach to the discussion. Orpheus 05:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bingo. --Cheeser1 05:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So feel free to say what you want to say via my talkpage or my email. That will reduce the likelihood of disruption, and free up this talkpage for constructive discussion on how to enrich the article with more information and reliable sources. Hal Cross 05:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  From [[User_talk:Cheeser1|my talk page]] 

message: An administrator needs to mediate this page before the whole Hal/CMMK feud deteriorates any further.  WAVY 10 Fan 22:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not the administrator notice board, so I'm puzzled to why you are inserting this comment here. Also, mediation is not a good idea and I'm not the only party involved in this "feud." —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 23:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Hal/CMMK" I didn't say you were the only one. It seems like you and Hal are trying to counter the other's edits.  WAVY 10 Fan 23:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hal Cross has not recently countered my edits and I have not countered Hal Cross' edits, unless there were in direct violation of Wikipedia policy. I didn’t even have enough time to read all the sources he posted up the other day; others users got to it first and removed/reworded the information before I did. Even if I was counting Hal Cross’ edits, an administrator is not going to do any thing about it, because I have not violated any policies. Your comments about an administrator needing to mediate are completely unnecessary. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 23:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Wavy. Patience is definitely a useful thing here. But I would also be very much open to any kind of admin/mentor/mediator presence. I didn't get the impression that the problem is specifically related to CMMK/Myself. I feel its more a general discussion/editing POV problem. So you could be right that an admin presence may well be helpful. Hal Cross 02:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies. WAVY 10 Fan 12:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Maybe I've been too patient...

message: Orpheus. You also took this piece of information away from the article :.Its a reliable source and its giving actual figures. Its not just a passing mention at all. Do you have any suggestions on a compromise? Hal Cross 19:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The membership claim doesn't distinguish between membership of affiliates and membership of the parent organisation. It is a passing mention and it is suspiciously over-rounded (one significant figure). I think the reason you're having such trouble finding a source is because the AFA is very secretive about their figures - membership, budget etc. See here for example. Orpheus 20:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its ok, the figures differ from source to source in terms of generality. I'll put them all together so the readers can judge for themselves. Hal Cross 03:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then why didn't you use the most specific source to start with? Orpheus 04:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Mitchel source is fine. I have no problem with adding more information in combination with Mitchel. Hal Cross 04:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, it's not fine, for the reasons I gave above, and if the figures differ from source to source then I repeat - why didn't you start with the most specific source? Orpheus 05:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mitchel

message: Orpheus, you also removed this contextual piece of information that is relevant to the issue. Please explain in more detail why you think its not relevant to the issue. Hal Cross 19:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As Orpheus stated in the edit summary, this information is not relevant to the issue. Also, note sentence before the sentence you quoted in the article reads "His condemnation of military involvement in child prostitution was met by silence from the U.S. Navy." —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 19:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its as relevant as the author's comment. Adding the author's comment brings the comparison in and makes it relevant. You cannot remove one without removing the other. Hal Cross 19:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, second thoughts, I think its fair to leave RC Young's line in. It could be seen as argumentative editing, but its one of the more crass comments you see being thrown around by opponents of anti-porn, anti-pedophile activist. Hal Cross 19:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes its fine to leave the officer's comment out. The RC comment pretty much demonstrates the tackiness of the novelist pretty well on its own.  Hal Cross 03:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What was tacky about the author's comment? It seems reasonable to me that the AFA should be more concerned with actual pedophilia than a fictional depiction of sex. That suggests to me that the opinion expressed below about how the AFA oppose porn because it could lead to pedophilia is somewhat hollow. Orpheus 04:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The AFA seem to me to have prevented pedophilia by protesting against what they see as obscene material, at least according to a report I have. And they have been core to the removal of a whole mess of child pornography from various media, and that includes homosexually oriented websites.  You are free to hold a dismissive view on their work though. Hal Cross 04:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's circular logic. The AFA think porn leads to pedophilia, so they protest against it, and we should include the claim because they are effective at preventing it through their protests. You have to assume that the premise is true to make that work, and we can't do that - it's WP:OR. Orpheus 05:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well yes of course I would discourage you from attempting OR. In relation to the Newsreview matter though, I am becoming far happier with the RC Young comment as it stands. Hal Cross 10:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Newsreview.com

message: Hello all. I made an ANI notification. Feel free to comment. Hal Cross 05:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ANI notification

message: The article seems to me to be strongly biased towards presenting the religious-conservative elements of the group and it doesn’t seem to show any of the diversity of views, background influences, and concerns that are in the sourced literature.  
One discrepancy is that the lead section has some information on when the AFA was started, and on the biblical view and conservative view, but that doesn’t seem to be reflected in the main body of the article. According to WP:LEAD, the lead is to be a concise overview of the whole subject. The lead seems to be quite narrow to me, and some of the information isn’t expanded upon or enriched in the main body of the article.  
There was a background section that I started off and was open to input on , but it somehow got deleted.  I believe the background should involve information such as the inception of the group, prior related groups, people and their backgrounds, the main views about the AFA, its core beliefs and so on.  There is a repeat mention throughout the article about the so – called conservative Christian view of the AFA, but the specifics of those views are not mentioned at all. Its almost as if the term conservative Christian is being used as an accusation, with no specific mention of the category of conservative Christian that it is considered to belong to. 
So in sum, the article really seems to lack the context and main concerns of the AFA, and why they are concerned about porn, pedophilia and so on.  Anyway, I am open to suggestions on how to make the article more representative of the whole story. Hal Cross 10:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Each individual bit of that background section has been discussed in excruciating detail on this talk page already. The good bits are still in the article, the bits that were already in the article were removed for redundancy, and the bits that were either wrong or not encylopedic were removed. Orpheus 13:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The general state of the article

message: Make your arguments here for keeping American Family Association in a category relating to anti-gay activism that isn't called Homophobia. Orpheus 11:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments for keeping a similar category 

message: Make your arguments here for removing American Family Association from :Category:Homophobia and not replacing it with an equivalent category. Orpheus 11:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the fact is, a category is a category, not an indictment. Nobody says "If an article is categorized as relating to homophobia, the organization/group is automatically homophobic as a matter of fact." Jumping to that conclusion might be possible, but it's not our fault if people are making unnecessary leaps in logic. There are groups/individuals that are verifiably associated with homophobia. They fall into this category. --Cheeser1 03:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here we disagree. I think that it is a natural and foreseeable conclusion, not an "unnecessary leap of logic," and I think that we ought to take responsibility here. We can inform the reader about AFA's homophobia in the body of the article, where NPOV applies, and we have certainly done our duty. The category is unnecessary, and I think that these comments are very useful and clear. --Marvin Diode 21:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we're supposed to report what's verifiable, not what might be open to (mis)interpretation. All categories are unnecessary - Wikipedia would function without them. But they are used to group articles that have something in common. The AFA is notably and prominently noted as an organization that opposes what it calls the "gay agenda." Reliable sources can easily verify that this organization is, at least, associated with homophobia. We do not need to make any "value" judgments - this "value judgment" or "accusation" line of thinking is totally irrelevant. --Cheeser1 21:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, it's "not our fault" that people get that impression from a category that lists the AFA next to Nazis and Fred Phelps. *rolls eyes* Jinxmchue 21:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The European Fundamental Rights Agency is also grouped in the category "next to Nazis and Fred Phelps"; what is your point?  —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 21:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  Jinxmchue, the category emphatically should not list the AFA next to Nazis. That is the reason :Category:Homophobic violence was created - it was conceded that it wasn't appropriate to list the AFA with organisations or individuals that physically attacked gay people. The subcategory Nazism was moved, I'm not entirely sure why the article wasn't - when it becomes unprotected I'll make that change. Orpheus 23:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments for removing the category entirely 

message: Please discuss the arguments here to avoid a threading nightmare. Orpheus 11:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are stating that groups should not be under the category "Homophobia," but there are multiple groups under that category, so your comments belong on WP:CfD or Category Talk:Homophobia. Besides that your argument is flawed: anti-Semitic and anti-Catholic can both be considered “value-laden judgment” categories, but they exist; you quote WP:CAT, but you did not provide a reliable source that states the AFA being classified as being involved in the subject of homophobia as controversial (“shown through reliable sources to be controversial”); the AFA does fear homosexuals, so I'm confused as to why you saying "irrational fear" is reason not to use the category; and what an organization would label themselves is irreverent. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 18:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have proposed deletion of the category on the category talk page. Eiler7 21:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, the "primary" definition includes the entire primary definition. That means it encompasses opposition to gays/gay-rights movement/etc. And don't make me bust out a few papers on homophobia. This whole "calling them homophobic is unfair" seems a bit played out. --Cheeser1 22:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Homophobia has a definition. If it fits and there are revelant citations and proof then that should be it really. Whether you believe the term can be used as an accusation is a personal opinion and not at all relevant. It's ridiculous to suggest that an editor can tell that the term is being used disparagingly! In the case of encyclopedic content, the dictionary definition is used --Neon white 00:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the subject, the term doesn’t fit at all in the AFA’s case. The discrimination issue is part of a controversy. The AFA are accused of discrimination against homosexuals and the gay activists are accused of discrimination against the AFA/conservative Christians.  The phobia issue is also a controversy due to the presence of homosexuals in the AFA, and the provision of services for becoming “ex-gay” and to accept the teachings of God according to scripture.  Its not self-evident, or uncontroversial.  It would also lead to the application of the homophobia category to a huge range of Abrahamic religions and religious groups, such as Catholic church, Islam, the Jewish faith, Protestantism, including the companies that agree with them to remove pro-gay benefits because they agree with those religious groups and denominations. Hal Cross 02:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Here is the relevant text: "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option."Hal Cross 04:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, that's right. We are being careful of NPOV - it's verifiable that the AFA promotes homophobia and, verifiable that they engage in it (although the case is weaker for the latter). The only controversy is that they don't like being called homophobic - but they would, wouldn't they. In the mainstream press it is not controversial that the AFA advocates discrimination against gay people, which is part of :Category:Homophobia. Orpheus 04:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  Here, for instance, in Business Week, the columnist says "The AFA, which has an undeniable (though it tries) agenda against homosexuals living peacefully and enjoying liberties equal to straight people". A letter to the International Journal of Epidemiology by Hogg et al specifically labels the AFA and other such groups as homophobic. Orpheus 04:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As above, according to multiple editors there seems to be problems with the use of the homophobia category, the sources provided showing critics labeling the AFA as homophobic also show a clear controversy, and the discrimination label also goes both ways and relates to the civil rights (first amendment, freedom to express and religion) issues. These issues apply to many other religious groups other than the AFA. Hal Cross 04:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And...? Does any of this change the fact that the AFA is verifiably homophobic, or at least associated with homophobia? No. --Cheeser1 05:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The links above demonstrate controversy.  The AFA is a charity that provides a public benefit of advocacy and civil rights . They are highly efficient in providing that public benefit and rated as exceptional in that work. They are doing what they do: they are advocating. The authors of the research didn’t intend the information to be used as such. However, advocates are allowed to use whatever information they want to conduct their work. This is a basic right in democratic countries. There is a controversy over how to use that information, the homophobia label is used by a critic in a controversy.  The related information (about critics labeling the AFA as homophobic) in the AFA article itself has been placed in a controversy section . It is controversial and inappropriate according to the categorization guidelines.  Hal Cross 06:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, Chairty navigator says NOTHING about the AFA being involved in civil rights. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 18:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As below,  Charity Navigator creates the categories and causes. Charity Navigator assigns the AFA to the category of Public Benefit, and assigns the AFA to the cause of Advocacy and Civil Rights. They are classifications that Charity Navigator has created. Hal Cross 02:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And it categorizes them based on what each charity says that it does. Once again, stop obfuscating the issue. --Cheeser1 05:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Charity Navigator rates the AFA as Exceptional in "Advocacy and Civil Rights", the cause that Charity Navigator has created for a selection of charities. such as the; Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty; A.J. Muste Memorial Institute; and Advocates for Children of New York. Hal Cross 06:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which doesn't change the fact that it categorizes them based on what each charity says that it does. Once again, and for the last time, stop obfuscating the issue. You are not allowed to stick your fingers in your ears and keep repeating the same invalid thing over and over. --Cheeser1 00:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I got the point a long time ago. You and Orpheus do keep bringing up the issue though. All I am doing is replying to your repeat questions. Hal Cross 10:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  I sought a third opinion on this, and the result was that the neutral editor agreed that using the information from Charity Navigator was "inappropriate". It's astounding that Hal continues to use it, after all of the reasons given from many editors why it's not appropriate. Orpheus 00:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The third opinion only said that they thought the source was not appropriate for giving a view on the stated mission of the AFA.  I am not giving my opinion on that at all. I am simply stating that Charity Navigator created the classifications for a number of charities. They then decided that AFA was fit for category of Public Benefit, with the cause of Advocacy and Civil Rights, and a rating of; Exceptional. Hal Cross 10:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: Hello all. There is a need for this article to have a context or background, without it jumping right into POV about what the AFA does. That background section was removed yet again .  Orpheus's statement says that the information has been removed according to consensus. However, there is new information there, which comes from reliable sources, and all the information there is reliable. Please state why you would object to the presentation of this encyclopedic information. Hal Cross 03:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try adding the new material seperately without re-adding all the other stuff that's been done several times already. It's disruptive to continue insisting on your version of that text. Some of it was removed per WP:V, some of it was reworded and put in more appropriate sections, and some of it was taken out because it was unnecessarily repetitive. If you have new things to add to the article, then go for it, but remember the disclaimer at the bottom of the edit box: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it. Orpheus 03:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please specify which parts you believe are not verifiable, and state why. I added the text in sections. I have responded to your objections. You have once again referred to consensus, when it is inappropriate to do so. In fact you seem to be using consensus to overcome NPOV policy. Please explain why you continue to engage in such such activities. Hal Cross 03:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You apparently didn't pay much attention to my comments the last few times. I don't really see the point in repeating the same discussion every few weeks. Orpheus 03:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So basically it doesn't matter how much new material is presented, or how the older information is adjusted to cater for prior objections? Does that mean that any information I present, no matter how well researched and supported by reliable sources, it will all be deleted or suppressed  regardless? Hal Cross 04:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You didn't adjust the material. It was a typo-for-typo copy of what you added the last two times. There's nothing obviously wrong with the Balmer reference but sticking it in the middle of all the other stuff isn't really productive - why not try adding it to the article on its own, instead of tucked in with a bunch of reverted reversions. Also, please learn to reference properly - it's a pain for everyone else to have to clean up your referencing style. Orpheus 04:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with Orpheus on this one. Much of the information is repetitive and unnecessary. Do we really need to tell readers the organization was founded in Tupelo twice. I do think some of the info is salvageable, and working it into the article shouldn't be too hard. And since you do seem to be struggling with the referencing format, I think this page should help you get over that hurdle. AniMate 04:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the link AniMate. The information was a work in progress before it was simply deleted. The habit of Orpheus and CMMK, seems to be to kneejerk revert rather than improve , and to claim consensus to delete good research. There is more information to add to the dates of formation, for example. Again, to my knowledge, I have never removed any well sourced critical information from this article. The trend seems to be that any positive views of the AFA or the information and activities they engage in tends to be deleted out of hand or suppressed, and contextual information on the broader concerns of the AFA charity is removed. This is an absurd situation. Working any of that information into the article will likely be as impossible as it has always been, as long as the article is held hostage by the current self-contradictory and condemnatory pro-gay-agenda POV. For example, information was worked into the article, but yet another excuse was trumped up in order to lose the offensively positive information. Luckily, the situation is so ridiculously anti-NPOV that it is impossible not to maintain a sense of humor about it. Hal Cross 05:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of Background/context Section

message: Well its pretty clear that certain editors here want the homophobia category to stay here. I found some consistency at last: Its pretty consistent that any positive information about the AFA helping in the fight against child porn will be removed from the article .  I don't think its the sort of consistency that Wikipedia is looking for though. So I added the information again using citations , and low and behold we have more consistency: Orpheus kneejerk removed the newly sourced information, just five minutes after it was presented, and again inappropriately stating that the new information has been dealt with before .  Anyone care to comment on how more ridiculous this might get? Hal Cross 07:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My recommendation was to revert any edits he makes, if they are disputed and defy the established consensus. That is standard procedure for disruptive/non-consensus editing. You deliberately misquoted me, which brings me to my next point: the information you continue to add is being removed becuase it is not supported by reliable sources. Some of the sources are unreliable (e.g. PR firms releasing AFA statements) and the rest of the sources don't support the claims you're using them to make. There's no conspiracy, and this isn't "kneejerk" stuff - this issue was discussed quite some time ago, including all the content/sources you keep adding. The sources did not (and still do not) adequately support the content you're trying to add to the article. --Cheeser1 11:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheeser1, allow me to point out some simple facts. The situation is one where several editors are using brute consensus to push one opinion in a controversy, whereas Wikipedia recommendations on balanced editing and NPOV indicate that you and the other two editors are wrong. You want the AFA to be categorized as homophobia. The article is unbalanced and editors here are not allowing the broader information about the AFA. They are deleting rather than improving . You have asked for reliable sources, and whenever reliable sources are presented you, or the editors you are conferring with, delete my edits and are continuing to delete core and self-evident information about the AFA. The AFA are mainly concerned about indecency in the media. You have failed to assume good faith. I did not deliberately misquote you at all. I gave my account of the situation.  Did you see PR Presswire in my last edits? No, you are talking about a ref you objected to and I adjusted accordingly, regardless of whether the ref is good or not.  The difference here is that I respond to your objections, and you fail to respond to my improvements. You and the other editors just delete out of hand. Kneejerk fashion! Within minutes or hours! When you have three editors who seem to have used brute consensus overcome multiple objections from outside editors who refer directly to WP guidelines, and you have failed to respond to non-conflict provoking alternatives, then you have a ridiculous situation.  Your general attitude is to allow OR to support your opinion that the AFA are homophobic , and that, because some people from one side of a controversy say they are anti-gay or homophobic, then they should be categorized according to your opinion. You allow information into the controversy section because you say it is controversial, yet you deny that information is obviously and globally controversial so that you can apply the homophobia category. Your denials are self-contradictory and ridiculous. I point you again, to the alternatives that were presented to you in the above discussion. What is your response?  Hal Cross 14:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, your complaints merit no response. So I give you none. --Cheeser1 15:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, no response beyond what has already been given over and over again on 930 kB of talk page, at least. Orpheus 15:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheeser1. Your responses have been consistently dismissive from start to finish , including consistently dismissing RfC comments and NPOV oriented WP guidelines on categorization  and claiming consensus in order to remove reliable views about the AFA that just happen to be positive. I have presented reliably sourced information on the AFA and there is a lot more to add. Continue working with other editors of your own POV  to remove reliably sourced information at your own risk. Your edits are all on record, and you seem to be part of a concerted deletion  of a rather obvious and self evident set of facts about a Christian organization that was set up to promote decency Hal Cross 15:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of information about the AFA's fight against child pornography