Talk:Brian Camenker

message: A full gamut of Massachusetts culture war articles, and nothing from the Massachusetts New? How times change, I guess. Stilgar135 06:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

message: I'll admit that "attention" is more neutral than "notoriety", but I don't see how you can reasonably replace "anti-gay" with "pro-family". His activism is entirely based on opposition to homosexuality. Stilgar135 06:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But Christianity isn't the cornerstone of his beliefs. I've read articles by and about him for years, and religion almost never comes up. Beyond that, he doesn't advocate for school prayer or against abortion or any other standard right-wing Christian causes. Again, "pro-family" means different things. Can you actually deny that Camenker isn't anti-gay? Of those three options, it's the only one that really encompasses everything that he is. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to simply call him a conservative activist and emphasize, in the article's body, that he focuses on homosexuality and sexual education. Stilgar135 01:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology

message: This article is one of [ thousands] on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message on the talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material violating someone's copyright. If you are not sure whether the link on this article should be removed or if you would like to help spread this message, contact us on User talk:J.smith/YouTube Linklist. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 00:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  YouTube links 

message: Could this article be any more in violation of WP:NPOV? Discuss. --Alexc3 (talk) 01:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we could add some of Brian's Holocaust Denial arguments (unopposed, of course). Kidding aside, I agree completely, this article is hideously bad, POV-wise. The language demonizes one side, while glorifying the other, all four references are to anti-gay publications, etc. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this article even meet the criteria for notability? WP:BIO says, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." I'm thinking of just putting this page up for deletion. --Alexc3 (talk) 23:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, there's some Boston Globe articles on him. --Alexc3 (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: Mr. Camenker and his supporters keep inserting loaded terminology such as "homosexual lobby", "homosexual agenda" and "vicious".  Such terms have no place in an NPOV article.  Corvus cornixtalk 02:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Homosexual agenda"

message: Since sources have been added to all sections, I'll remove the template. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 10:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: How about changing "pro-family groups" to "groups against homosexuality" or something? That's rather more specific, and I'd think it's NPOV ... MassR would presumably agree with the characterization (?).
Or at least "groups in favor of conservative family values"? "Pro-family" is just really a meaningless term. Organizations like MassEquality would call themselves pro-family too, and obviously they need to be distinguished from MassR and similar. —Switchercat talkcont 19:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Or maybe "groups with conservative attitudes toward homosexuality." Meh. —Switchercat talkcont 19:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch.  Note that the citation says "pro-family" - we actually discussed this issue over on MassResistance and came up with the wording/wklink that I just changed this one to match; hope you find it an improvement.  —EqualRights (talk) 19:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pro-family" 

message: Will Beback added a notability tag, but I saw no Talk section on it.  So this is it.
I agree with Will Beback that notability is an issue here.  Perhaps this page is best merged into MassResistance. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Some tags require a talk page entry. :Template:notability does not. In any case, the subject does not not appear to have notability aside from MR, so merging them is logical.   Will Beback  talk   14:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability tag