Talk:American Family Association/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about American Family Association. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Starting over

I've been watching this for a few weeks, and have decided to be bold and step in. I've archived the previous discussions, and I will be monitoring new discussions. I'm setting some ground-rules:

Try to limit your posts to one a day. If I see someone saying the same thing over and over, I'm going to move their comments to a sub-page and add a link.

Refrain from using the word "You". Don't discuss the actions of other editors. If I see people arguing with each other about each other's beliefs and intentions, I will move the discussion to one of the involved user's talk pages.

Discuss the article. Discuss sources. Cite your sources.

Work towards creating an NPOV version of the article that is acceptable to ~~everyone~~ a broad consensus of reasonable editors.

Stay on topic. This talk page is for discussions about this article. Don't discuss the merits of whether a specific category should exist on this talk page, I will move such discussions to the talk page of the category being discussed.

If anyone has a problem with how I am monitoring this page, don't discuss it here. Come to my talk page.

--☑ SamuelWantman 19:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Unresolved questions

So what are the unresolved questions about the article? Please list them below, stated in an NPOV way. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 18:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, as far as I know there are no unresolved questions. The question of Category:Homophobia was settled - the category was kept in its CfD (unanimously) and its current use was also validated by the consensus established there (and in previous similar discussions). Concerns about "phobia" and "irrational" and "pejorative" etc were all addressed, and settled. The issue of the paragraph about pedophilia was settled - the sources cited were either unreliable or misquoted. --Cheeser1 18:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I will add that while I'm happy to address legitimate concerns about the neutral point-of-view in this article, I am not interested in entertaining complaints that reject established consensus, argue from the point of view of the AFA itself, and put undue weight on the AFA's opinion of itself. The fact that the AFA denies that it is homophobic is not relevant unless this is documented notably in third-party sources, in a more-than-trivial way. --Cheeser1 19:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I've refactored these comments. The original version can be viewed here. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 19:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

When discussing the AFA's involvement in the public debate about the topic of homophobia, it would not be unreasonable to state that "the AFA denies that it is hompophobic". -- ☑ SamuelWantman 19:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Surely. But we cannot lend credence to this opinion, nor use it as a counter-balance in concerns about neutrality/balance of opinion. Not without sources/commentary to that effect, written by reliable third parties, which has not been provided (and does not exist, as far as I know). --Cheeser1 19:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I have searched the Internet and have found no sources of the AFA denying something is homophobic. Also, Sam, there will ever be a solution to work towards a "version of the article that is acceptable to everyone." —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 19:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I've refactored your comment, and changed the wording of my groundrule. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 20:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice to have a section on how the AFA is involved in the terminology debate. The definitions of "homophobia", "political correctness", "family values", etc are part of the advocacy work, and it's actually quite an important debate. The side that defines the terms tends to be able to define (and win) the debate as well, and there's a few sociology papers and editorials on this subject. Most of them mention the religious right (including the AFA) in general rather than just the AFA alone, though, which is why I haven't added it yet in the current climate. It would be a good addition to the article though, and shore up support for the category issue too. Orpheus 20:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Here are just a few unresolved questions for starters:

What is the background to the AFA? Under exactly what conditions was it formed, including political social climate and so on? A timeline may be handy.

How does the AFA construe decency, and how does that relate to the broader set of Christian views?

How many other Christian organizations have been attacked using the homophobia, bigotry, anti-gay label, etc? And how many religious organizations? How many conservative organizations?

What does the gay/gay activist view say about the AFA’s work against pedophilia, child abuse, and child pornography?

What are the broad range of AFA concerns? This is one indicator [1]. This broader info has generally been deleted despite it being supported by more reliable sources. There will be an even broader set of issues according to other sources. What are those broader issues from other sources/perspectives? Ie, sociological, religious, civil/political etc.

What are the AFA’s affiliations, and what it the nature of those affiliations? Who are the main people in the AFA?

Exactly how many ways are the AFA active in activism? What are the main reasons for the AFA’s activism? What methods of activism do they use?

What are the main positive views of members of the public towards the AFA? There are plenty (AFA has a huge membership), but so far all such views seem to have been removed. What are the main categories of positive views about the AFA? Hal Cross 05:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hal, Sam asked for "unresolved questions about the article" (emphasis his), not about the AFA. Unless I'm mistaken, he's soliciting our input on which content disputes have not been settled. For some of these questions, it may be very difficult to find reliable sources to provide adequate content (eg What does the gay/gay activist view say about the AFA’s work against pedophilia, child abuse, and child pornography?). For the record, there's no such thing as "the gay view." --Cheeser1 05:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I've refactored these comments. The original version can be viewed here. Yes, I did ask about unresolved questions about the article. The emphasis is my own. It seems clear to me that these are questions pointing to information that is seen as being deficient. Well sourced, third party NPOV information could be added about some of these. I to am dubious about anything which claims to know what the "gay view" is, but the views of gay organizations could be used. However, this article should not become a forum to decide the merits (or lack thereof) of the AFA and its positions. The pros and cons can both be stated in an NPOV way using citations, and the reader can draw his/her own conclusions. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 21:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

My only question is this: How would a neutral and reasonable outsider interpret the Homophobia category in relationship to this article? After reading it in its current state, would they say "The category refers to the AFA in the larger context of homophobia" or would they say "The category is there saying the AFA is homophobic"? AniMate 23:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, Cheeser1 has indicated he's going to be busy in real life for the next week. While I don't anticipate this being a problem, I'd like to urge the we not make any drastic changes until he returns, as he is one of the more active editors in both the article and this debate. AniMate 23:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that a reasonable and neutral observer would look at the other articles in Category:Homophobia and see the European Fundamental Rights Agency. At that point, they would hopefully realise that the category is about the larger context. The article itself does go into some detail on the AFA's position on gay rights and homosexuality in general, and the category reflects that too. On a related note, I think it would be helpful if the category included more articles from the EFRA side of the issue (and although I acknowledge that comment isn't strictly about the AFA, it is germane to my point). Orpheus 00:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

In response to Hal's points, I think that the article already includes quite a bit of what he's asking for. Some of them do seem to be begging the question a bit, in particular points 3, 4 and 8. Orpheus 00:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is it of any relevance how "a neutral and reasonable outsider [will] interpret the Homophobia category in relationship to this article"?—Christopher Mann McKay^talk 02:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

By gay activist view of course I mean any gay activist writer, site or organization that has commented on the actions of the AFA in relation to what they generally do (fight against porn and child porn etc). I wasn’t about to suggest a section entitled “Gay views on child porn”. And of course all other relevant views are important also.

In response to AniMate’s concerns; I'm not sure what neutral or reasonable would mean precisely, but the reader will read about a group called American Family Association, and read nothing about background, charity, religious beliefs, intentions, and issues, but they will read a long list of what the article seems to conclude are homophobic boycotts. They’ll get to the end of a large section on homophobia (which seems to be mostly partisanly sourced OR) and see that the subject has been categorized as homophobia. Some readers will probably jump for joy and shout “Nice one Wikipedia!”. Other readers (especially from a non-anglo American view) will look at the number of public who joined the boycotts and probably think Wikipedia concludes that American family types in general are homophobic. Readers who joined the protest against e.g. Calvin Klein’s under-age homoerotic adverts will read the article and think Wikipedia has concluded that the informed encyclopedic prognosis on such a disease is - homophobia. "Our conclusion is that AFA and its countless supporters and co-boycotters have been tested positive for homophobia" (Wikipedia 2007):)

There is a bit of a problem over sourcing on the article. I believe I have presented some of the most reliable sources in this article for positive views, yet the article seems to be full of dodgy/partisan sources that have been presented to support the notion of AFA’s activities being homophobia. The staunch insistence on those seemingly unreliable or OR sources, and the urgent removal of reliable sources supporting context or positive views, would probably lead the average bystander to think that proceedings are not altogether balanced:) Your input on this seeming discrepancy will be appreciated.

I suppose one main unresolved question also would be, what sort of contextual information is appropriate for this article? Hal Cross 04:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The homophobia section is not original research. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 10:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I've refactored this comment. A legitimate question seems to be whether titling the section "homophobia", since it is a rather vague title, gives the impression that the AFA is homophobic, rather than being labeled as homophobic by its detractors. Stating that they are homophobic is clearly contentious. Changing the heading to "anti-gay", "labeled as homophobic" or "charges of homophobia" could improve this, without changing the content of the section which seems well sourced. The section still does not detail the AFA's involvement in the public debate about homophobia. If the article's only connection with homophobia is that the AFA has been labeled as being homophobic, that would be against a broad consensus not to label people and organizations by their beliefs. We have removed categories for racists, anti-Semites, etc... When the categories were removed, this was not done with the expectation that the member articles would be moved into the parent topics of racism, antisemitism, etc... The AFA does have a strong connection to the debate about the use of the term "homophobia" and it would be NPOV to so categorize the article if the connection to the topic is clear in the article. If the homophobia section detailed this connection, and the existing section were re-labeled "anti-gay accusations" or something similar, we could probably put this debate to bed. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 19:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why there could be any confusion about what Category:Homophobia means. It says so right on the category page, and even if that needs tweaking, it's subject to discussion at that page, not here. --Cheeser1 21:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi all. I tried to find information on the homophobia issue per se, but literature adds nothing at all to the homophobia label. In fact it’s just treated as a negative label that’s used in various arguments against many Christian groups who advocate self-determination. It’s not a homophobia issue at all. The issue isn’t “the AFA are anti-gay because...”, its mostly “they are anti-gay and….….”. The only place where “AFA are anti-gay because” is due to the scripture issue. It’s the same as all similar religious groups that have ex-gay organizations such as with Catholic, Jewish, and Islamic groups [2]. Most Christian groups say you should have self-determination over sexuality [3] [4], and they say those groups should be allowed to spread that message using whatever religious value system they have. Another issue is where gay-rights groups state they want something (specific marriage rights, extra benefits from Disney, Ford etc), and Christian groups (and some courts) oppose what they see as “special rights”. So there is a controversy, and whether you agree with the users or not, homophobia or anti-gay are just used as negative-opinion labels against the AFA in those controversies. The only thing to report is that the AFA are labeled as homophobic or anti-gay by critics. Its just the normal and ubiquitous, common or garden “Christian homophobia” vs “Spiritual development by scripture” argument. So the homophobia cat is inappropriate. An appropriate category may be LGBT rights and religion. Hal Cross 02:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how "negative opinion label" is what the category is. I'm sorry if you think that this is what the category is, but it's not. Also, let's keep in mind that you yourself made the "GBT rights and religion" category a subcategory of the Homophobia category. --Cheeser1 02:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think both views above are accurate. Being in the homophobia category doesn't mean a negative label per se, but if the only reason an article has been added to the category is because the organization has been labeled as being homophobic, then it is a miscategorization. An organization could be in the homophobia category because they advocate the uses of the term, they're involved in the debate about the term, the oppose the use term, etc... Reading the articles in the category would help someone better understand the topic of homophobia. The topic is not homophobic people and organizations. That category was removed after a CfD discussion. --☑ SamuelWantman 03:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

According to this logic, the Ku Klux Klan article which labels the group under 'Antisemitism', 'Anti-Catholicism', and 'Racism', is also a "miscategorization". The Westboro Baptist Church article also has similar categories. You state "the category is not homophobic people and organizations", yet not one person on the last CfD for Category:Homophobia said the category should be a keep, but should not be applied to persons or organizations. I have not seen any CfD for ‘Homophobic people’, but the 'Homophobic organizations' CfD (link) was split with most people supporting a merge into Category:Homophobia, while those objecting claimed the category is POV/categorize by opinion. I do not consider that CfD consensus to remove all organizations that are not involved in the debate or discussion of the term 'Homophobia'.—Christopher Mann McKay^talk 04:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

There are sevearl CFDs realated to this issue, and also relevant policies. Perhaps the most relevant CFDs are the discussion about Category:Anti-Semitic people andCategory:Homophobic people. Categorization policy says the since categorys are applied without annotation, they must be NPOV, self-evident and uncontroversial. I fervently believe that the AFA is a homophobic organization, yet I do not believe that this label is uncontroversial. Many people and organizations are miscategorized. People often defend the miscategorization of one article by pointing out how many others are also miscategorized. Also, the CFD opinions are constantly in flux and there is a gray area between the clear "keeps" and the clear "deletes". The KKK example is in this gray area, as is the AFA. The KKK is self-identified as a White Supremicist organization. I don't know if it is controversial or not to equate White Supremacy with Racism, or if the KKK article discusses the KKK in relation to the topic of Racism, Antisemitism, and Anti-Catholicism. My point here, is that unless we apply these categories in a NPOV way, there will continue to be long contentious arguments about these issues. There is an alternative which is much less contentious. Instead of categorizing organizations and individuals by their beliefs, they can be included in anotated lists, such as "List of groups labeled as homophobic", "List of people labeled as Anti-Semitic", etc... Since lists can have annotation, people can be included in these lists along with references, refutations and other explanations that would make the lists NPOV. --☑ SamuelWantman 14:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid this doesn't make sense. Then we'd have to call Category:Musicians as List of people labeled as musicians. The only reason we can even make such a claim is that the claim was made in a reliable source (ie they were labeled as homophobic). Furthermore, the category "homophobic" is quite different than "homophobia," which (as the category page explains) includes a wide variety of groups/individuals/etc. --Cheeser1 15:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The Homophobia category has caused nothing but trouble here. It has generated a ridiculous amount of conflict, and those who object to the category have done so for a good reason, based upon guidelines and the obviously wrong behavior of the category's proponents. The Homophobic Organizations category was actually created during that AFA conflict about the homophobia category: [5] [6]. A set of organizations were grouped into the homophobic organizations category [7][8][9][10][11] and during that conflict, the AFA was included. The homophobia category is as inappropriate as using the Homophobic Organizations category on this article.

The Homophobic Organizations grouping is, in concept and principle, the same type of grouping as Homophobia in this article; it’s just a categorization by negative opinion. It’s as inappropriate as the way the article has been skewed, and it’s inappropriate per se. And if there is any explanation of Homophobia in the case of the American Family Association, it would just make the WP categorization recommendations even more obvious that the cat is controversial and inappropriate in the case of the American Family Association. The main objection to the category by multiple editors in the RfC was that it breaches the WP categorization recommendations. It’s controversial as a term per se, controversial in application to the American Family Association and similar Christian organizations, not self-evident at all, especially in ex-gay terms, it’s pejorative, and condemnatory. As can be seen by many responses in the RfC, editors are bound to object and it is certain to create conflict, long term disruption, and bad feeling.

It doesn’t matter what any Wikipedian thinks personally about the American Family Association. The alternatives to the highly dubious Homophobia category are multiple. They include using categories that show the other side of the argument. They are more stable and accurate in issue terms, are supported by Wikipedia’s recommendations and flexible structure, and will serve the reader far better.

The history of this article is a strong indication of what could happen in future, here and on other similar articles. The homophobia category has, and can only really be supported by the obstinate and one-sided insistence on a condemnatory label. But it’s an anti-NPOV stance that is discouraged in general by Wikipedians. Such grouping activities have so many negative consequences for many other religion related articles on Wikipedia. The solution is very simple: Allow this to be an article that will serve as precedent for the conflict reducing categorization of gay-rights/religious-rights related articles. Stop a major source of conflict by removing the homophobia category from this article, and don’t allow any similar categories to be used as a proxy for the homophobia, homophobic organizations, or homophobic people categories. Hal Cross 16:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hal, with edit summaries like stop conflict provoking and condemnatory cats on this and similarly religion related articles, you might want to think about where this conflict is coming from, and who's creating it. You say that it "breaches the WP categorization recommendations" but those are recommendations, and the only real decision-making process we have is consensus. The consensus at Category:Homophobia is that it is not a "categorization by negative opinion" - no matter how much you want it to be. --Cheeser1 17:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If the consensus is that Category:Homophobia is not a "categorization by negative opinion", that is a good thing. I agree with that. But putting this article in that category should also not be a "categorization by negative opinion". The section on homophobia list lots of negative opinions by many groups, groups that label the AFA as being homophobic. It does not discuss the issue of homophobia. So the way out of this where we can all agree is to make the categorization of this article not based upon a "categorization by negative opinion" by relabeling the section as "anti-gay" or something similar, and creating a section on "homophobia" that relates to the AFAs involvement in the topic of homophobia. I'd like to see more discussion about where there is agreement. Let's start with the notion that the homophobia category is not or should not be a "categorization by negative opinion". --☑ SamuelWantman 02:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

*sigh* But that's not the point. We aren't here to mince words; it's pedantic and meaningless. Dancing around the term "homophobia" because Hal thinks we're being pejorative is not appropriate. The AFA takes anti-gay action, and is criticized as being homophobic. While we do not label them "homophobic," we do categorize them under "homophobia." The AFA being (allegedly) homophobic is "the topic of homophobia." And even if people insist that the category doesn't speak for itself, any and all concerns can be resolved at the category page itself, which explains its usage. --Cheeser1 03:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems a stretch to say that being labeled as homophobic is the topic of homophobia unless the connection has been made in the text of the article. If the AFA's being labeled homophobic led to controversy about how the term is used (which I think is the case), and that was discussed in the article, then being labeled as homophobic would be the topic of homophobia. But without the connection being made in the article, it seems like a end-run way to continue to label organizations by their beliefs after the categories that labeled them directly were deleted. This was discussed in depth when dealing with the deletion of the Ant-Semitic people category. The objection was that anyone labeled an anti-Semite would end up in the category however it was named. This isn't the best way to handle the information. Someone researching Homophobia would not want the category cluttered up with every person and organization that was ever accused of being homophobic. It is much better to make a list of such people and organizations. The information is not being removed, it is just being repackaged in a way that will not lead to disagreements like the one here. As a gay man who thinks the AFA is extremely homophobic, I look at this from the other way round. I would not want gay people and organizations categorized under "Sin" just because they have been labeled as "Sinners" by radical right organizations. How would that look? It would be much better to have a list of people labeled as sinners by the radical right. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 03:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

OD. Just a pointer, Cheeser1: The definition of Homophobia on the Homophobia category was supplied by the same editor who created the Homophobic Organizations category[12][13], and defended [14] it when it was up for deletion. The category is considered to be controversial in itself, and applicable to only a few non-controversial articles [15] and should be policed closely [16]. The category itself definitely needs work, and the activities and arguments here can be presented to improve the description there so as to avoid disruption on similar articles in the long term.

The homophobia category is being used here on the American Family Association category as if it were in the Homophobic Organizations category. The RfC has shown many objections to the category, and to its application here[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26]. Those objections have been generally dismissed in arguments for hanging onto the category. Many reasonable alternatives to the homophobia category have been presented, and dismissed. Efforts to prompt even hypothetical consideration of those alternatives have also been dismissed[27].

I would agree that the homophobia category should not be used to categorize by negative opinion. The only argument for keeping the category in this article now is the stubborn insistence on “some critics say the AFA is anti-gay, so the homophobia category applies”. The homophobia category is currently being used as a proxy for the Homophobic Organizations category. That’s categorizing by opinion and it’s unacceptable. That’s where the conflict started. Stubbornly insisting on the category is about as conflict sustaining as re-introducing the homophobic organizations category. The type of categorization used here would logically lead to a huge array of mainstream religions being added to the homophobia category. If that happened, the same sort of conflict would occur there that has disrupted this article for far too long.

Furthermore, the category description states [28]

“This category is for issues relating to homophobia, including organizations or individuals that are particularly noted for being involved in the subject of homophobia.”

Sam, from the literature that I have access to, there doesn’t seem to be any clear or notable discussion on the homophobia term itself. The American Family Association article has nothing notable to say about the subject of homophobia. The only information about the accusation shows more clearly that there is a controversy, and as such that information will bring the article closer to having the cat removed according to the objections raised by a lot of editors in the RfC. So, judging by the tendency towards escalating conflict on the AFA article [29]I think its unlikely that any such information will be presented. The issue is always related to condemnatory labels given to the American Family Association during a controversy. Thus the category is, and always was, inappropriate for this article and other religion-rights vs gay-rights related articles. Hal Cross 05:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The subject homophobia and the definition of the term homophobia are not the same thing. The subject of homophobia is (in short) the fear or hatred of gays, or discrimination or prejudice against them. The AFA is a recognized part of a body of groups, people, and ideas that define modern-day homophobia. There's no way you can deny that, even if you believe that the label is undeserved, that the label could be pejorative in a non-encyclopedic context, or that somehow being categorized under "homophobia" and being an organization somehow equates to being categorized as "homophobic organization." The categories "homophobic organization" and "homophobe" were deleted because they are, grammatically, constructed to specifically modify or describe the subject in question. "Homophobia" is not, and these false analogies between categories may make it seem like we're out go get the AFA, but we aren't. Although Sam seems to think it's an irrelevant personal comment, it is the case, Hal, that since you got here, you've been arguing that the AFA's opinion of itself should more of a part of the article, and that criticism should not be. Miles have been spun about how much of a big deal this is, that we're gay activists, that we're creating attack articles, that the category homophobia is a pejorative attack on whatever it labels. Now, Sam, I know you'll insist on removing this part of my comment (editing/censoring others' comments is a practice that is, by the way, fairly dubious). But remember that we are supposed to discuss the issue at hand, not the character of others - I'm not attacking Hal's character. But his history of editing for the sake of the AFA is completely relevant to this discussion and a part of the issue at hand - it explains why he believes we've constructed an attack article (hardly), why the category is a pejorative attack or accusation (clearly not), and why it must be eventually removed. I agree with Hal: it could be taken as a pejorative, and what concerns me is that it is, but only (as far as I can tell) by someone who's made it clear that portraying the AFA in a positive light is very important (no matter [[WP:UNDUE|what that entails). --Cheeser1 13:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser1. The homophobic organization cat was deleted due to bad grammar? Is that really what happened? I think most people would not see it that way: Homophobia is inappropriate, [30] Categorizing by opinion, [31] etc

“The AFA is a recognized part of a body of groups, people, and ideas that define modern-day homophobia. There's no way you can deny that”. Cheeser1, millions deny it. There is no officially recognized body of groups who define homophobia. It is totally controversial that any religious organization be considered something that defines homophobia. There are reliable sources all over the web from religious types who argue strongly and convincingly against the use of the homophobia label against their beliefs. Every religion from Abrahamic religions to Zoroastrians have been associated with homophobia. The lopsided argument for adding the American Family Association to the cat would have them all in the category.

“Hal, that since you got here, you've been arguing that the AFA's opinion of itself should more of a part of the article, and that criticism should not be.” Cheeser1, I have provided well sourced information for contextual information on the AFA, and balanced the article using positive views on some aspects of the AFA. Such sourced information has generally been urgently and dismissively removed e.g. very recently[32][33], and without sufficient discussion each time such reliably sourced information was presented. And to my knowledge, I have never removed, or argued for the removal of any critical information. The article is currently about as balanced as a gay-rights lobbyist.

Criticism of the AFA makes no difference to me. But disallowing positive views as has been done on a regular basis, or using one-sided categories as has been done with the homophobic organizations, and the homophobia categories, is totally inappropriate. Editors who wanted the category have been offering the same old lop-sided argument since before the RfC, and dismissing suggestions by multiple editors in the RfC. Discussion continues today, yet the door was slammed on the RfC when editors kept turning up to object to the category [34]. The same argument is being offered that would categorize specific races of people as inferior, just because someone says they are inferior. It’s just the same sad old condemnatory accusation. The whole situation can improve very quickly when the category is removed. Or is one-sided and condemnatory editing in fashion this season? Hal Cross 02:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Hal Cross 02:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hal, millions may deny that it's true, but the accusation is made all the same. That's all the response you're going to get, if the best argument you can make is to illogically reduce my argument to racial supremacy. You can make camel's nose arguments and strawman arguments, but to continue to insinuate that we're constructing an attack article, attack category, or anything of the sort is absurd (especially given a 13-0 unanimous CfD to keep using the homophobia category as it is used currently). Further pedantics about when/how/if to apply the category belong on the category page (where such nonsense was summarily rejected), not here. --Cheeser1 02:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

"The article is currently about as balanced as a gay-rights lobbyist.". I find that comment very telling, Hal. Here's a hypothetical question, though. Do you think, if asked, that the AFA would deny being anti-gay? ELIMINATORJR 20:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

EliminatorJr, this probably answers your question [35]Hal Cross 06:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser1. The terms “pedantic” “absurd” “nonsense” are really not the sort of terms that should be applied to careful multiple-editor input and objections to the homophobia category [36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44]. That editor input was dismissed in general by those who are using the homophobia category as a proxy for the homophobic organizations category [45][46][47]. Furthermore, the input on objections to the category were ended by an editor who has generally failed to address the issues: [48].

“Hal, millions may deny that it's true, but the accusation is made all the same.” Cheeser1, this is Wikipedia and it is not about the truth. We work with facts here, such as the fact that some people, especially gay-activists, use the homophobia or anti-gay label on the American Family Association and many other mainstream religious organizations. It’s just a negative label thrown at the enemy in a controversy.

Dismissing immediate editor input (as above) on careful categorizing is quite disruptive. Dismissing the broader consensus on careful categorization [49] is even more disruptive. Placing the emphasis on the abilities and biases of other editors, calling them deceitful and pressuring to drive them away [50][51] is also disruptive. It is also highly skewed to include a poorly sourced piece of negative information on the basis that it is controversial[52], yet deny that a category is controversial so that it can be kept in the article, even when that issue is presented in a controversy section[53].

Insisting on the controversial categorization of a subject using a category that is controversial in itself is entirely disruptive. The results of that disruption are written all over the presently skewed and skewered article. Removing the category removes the one-sided categorization by condemnatory opinion, and removes such disruption. Then we can get on with somehow including some sort of context and maybe even some non-critical views into the article. Hal Cross 06:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hal, you do not have consensus support. You are the only one so vehemently opposed to this category - you seem to think that the consensus that supports us (namely, a 13-0 unanimous CfD) is opposed by some other consensus, but what is that consensus? A bunch of cherry-picked comments from other editors (several repeats), all of whom have left the discussion or who don't even agree with you. Hal, you've accused us of compiling an attack article, of using Wikipedia to advance a gay-activist bias, and seem to think that we're being disruptive. However, this is not the case. You're doing nothing but repeating yourself over and over - I suggest you stop, at risk of continuing to make errors in judgment like accusing us of some broad conspiracy to disrupt your editing of this article (which has, in this matter and others, proven to be based on unreliable sources, regardless of the broader issues), or accusing us of compiling some sort of pro-gay attack site. --Cheeser1 06:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser1, please address the issues. We are not opposing the category, only categorization on this and similar articles by condemnatory opinion. The homophobia category and homophobic organizations category have been used interchangeably on this article[54][55][56]. The only argument is to apply the category because some people say the AFA are homophobic or anti-gay during a controversy. Well sourced positive views on the AFA have been denied by those wishing to keep the homophobia category[57][58]. The current categorization fails to overcome the broader consensus[59]. The broader consensus prevails and thus the category should be removed. Hal Cross 07:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hal, I have no intention of addressing issues that have already been resolved. If you want to continue to argue that your (that's a singular your, FYI) argument stands in stark opposition to some evil group of editors who are conspiring to besmirch the AFA by categorizing it appropriately, and by removing unsourced or otherwise inappropriate "positive" material, then this discussion is not going to get anywhere. --Cheeser1 07:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) So Hal, the AFA denies being anti-gay. So this [60] AFA publication isn't normal for them? Selected quotes;

"Homosexuals seem to favor leniency regarding pedophilia."

"It is clear that there is nothing flawed in principle with our argument that the institutionalizing of homosexuality will cause societal decay."

"To allow for homosexuality in public life is tacitly to concede its legitimacy."

(on the argument that homosexuality may be genetic) "the propensity to become an alcoholic is genetic, but no one suggests that there be no regulations regarding the actions of alcoholics."

"homosexuality is not a benign factor like race."

"There can be no doubt that most Americans would be repulsed if they could see the decadence within the homosexual community."

"Some behaviors are universally deviant and every society considers them destructive. Incest, rape, and psychopathic (apparently unmotivated) violence are considered taboo in all societies. So is predominant or exclusive homosexuality or even bisexuality." (Yes, they really compared homosexuality to rape).

ELIMINATORJR 07:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes EliminatorJR, it is a scripture oriented view on homosexuality. It is a view that is common to all mainstream religions. So saying it is homophobia is inherently controversial. That controversy needs clearer representation in various religion/LGBT rights articles. The AFA is only one of a multitude of organizations that have been associated with homophobia. Include one, include them all, including the Catholic and Anglican churches, Islam etc. Hal Cross 08:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hal, this is a seriously misguided logical fallacy. See camel's nose. The AFA is an anti-gay activist group. The Catholic church is not, and "Islam," well apparently you don't know that Islam is not a centralized religion. The fact that the AFA is a significant and notable anti-gay activist group and that as such a group it is significantly and notably associated with homophobia, verifiable in third party sources, that's how we source information here. Once again, no one but you is claiming that if a group is in this category then we have automatically determined that it is homophobic. Just because the AFA happens to be both is irrelevant (another logical fallacy on your part). --Cheeser1 08:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It is only one condemnatory view that the AFA are an anti-gay group per se. Thats a controversy. Some people also say that the Catholic church are anti-gay. Remember, you are the one who keeps saying "associated with homophobia". There are no organizations I know of called "The Sacred Church of the Blessed Homophobics". Your very own mis-categorization policy will lead to endless conflict and lop-sided editing in order to push for such categorization. The evidence is all over this article. Hal Cross 09:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you're reading what you're writing Hal, but this is hilarious. Instead of making a legitimate CfD, you insisted on talking at length on your own terms on the category talk page. Instead of coming to a resolution, you insist that the category must be and will eventually be removed, no matter what consensus itself might say. Instead of accusing us, in earnest, of creating an attack article, you take pot-shots at people and accuse us of a whole range of "gay activism," accusation, attacks, etc, without taking the time to substantiate or properly formulate these accusations. If you want to continue to "remind" us of the fact that you will continue to feed this "endless conflict," you feel free, but this issue has already been settled in the appropriate place. --Cheeser1 15:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so let's also get back to Wikipedia 101: What is policy? Policy is a set of rules and guidelines to help editors understand how to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. Policy is written, like the rest of Wikipedia, by consensus. Does that mean that a single person's interpretation of policy (or even that of a small, non-consensus group) is automatically an extension of this broader consensus? No. That's a huge gap in the logic there, and edits like this are totally inappropriate. Policy may reflect a broader consensus, but we form a more relevant consensus whenever we interpret policy for a specific case. The local consensus for any topic outweighs singular objections based on a singular interpretation of policy, even though policy is approved by a broad consensus. Let's try to remember that, before we go claiming that we have a Wikipedia-wide consensus just because we're interpreting a policy with such consensus. --Cheeser1 07:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

My edit is in agreement with Sam's suggestion, and in agreement with the broader consensus of Wikipedia. I removed the category so as to end the long term disruptive conflict. You have not provided any information on the subject of homophobia in the article, and if you did it would make the categorization even more controversial, and an even more obvious candidate for removal. The only way you can keep the category is by being disruptive. Keeping the category means dismissing the broader consensus[61], and means insisting on prolonged conflict. You were not interested in even vaguely exploring any of the many conflict breaking alternatives presented, so the only alternative is to follow the broader consensus and remove the category. Hal Cross 08:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

What is this Hal, another ultimatum? "Unless you all agree with me, I will wield consensus as I see fit and do whatever I want"? Once again, Hal, this is not how Wikipedia works. --Cheeser1 08:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not restricting anyone in any way. You have a lot of alternatives to avoid going against the categorization guidelines. For example, the one you already have there, a list may be more appropriate [62]. You could still group the AFA with whatever villainous collection of religious believers you like and it would stop the conflict immediately. What is your response to that alternative? Hal Cross 08:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Sarcastic, disingenuous, and unnecessary "alternatives" require no response. I could just as easily make a rude comment proposing some alternative to you that involves glorifying the AFA as an "alternative," but if you refuse to accept any alternative to removing this category, if you continue to edit in spite of consensus and if you continue to accuse everyone but you here of building attack articles, promoting some gay agenda, or whatever else, you're going to have to take responsibility for those accusations. You can't go on and on with these absurd accusations, especially when it's just a part of your attempt to get your way. --Cheeser1 15:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser1, I am simply presenting diffs [63][64][65] which show the very creation and use of the homophobic organizations categories being used instead of the homophobia category. That looks very much like the homophobia category is being used as a proxy for the homophobic organizations category. The article as it stands has had positive views presented, yet non exist there now [66]. It is full of critical information and far too much weight has been given to the homosexuality issue. The broader concerns of the AFA have generally been disallowed by those editors wishing to keep the homophobia category: [67][68].

You maintain that the AFA should be in the category because it is associated with homophobia, rather than being a homophobic organization. Yet you have just been treating the AFA as if it was a homophobic organization: [69], and creating some sort of non-existent contrast with the Catholic Church, as if it is not a homophobic organization. There is no recognized body of homophobic organizations, and all religious organizations are associated with homophobia because it’s just one of those terms used against them in controversies. It’s a categorization by condemnatory opinion only. Its inappropriate and causes conflict.

You stated “sarcastic, disingenuous, and unnecessary "alternatives" require no response” The suggestion on the Categorization recommendations [70] is not sarcastic, disingenuous or unnecessary. It’s a serious suggestion. It is necessary in the case of the AFA as offering alternatives to one-sided categories is necessary. Adopting one of the many alternatives presented already will help the article and will help the reader. And it will stop the conflict. So, I’m going to ask you again; which of the many alternatives presented already do you favor the most? Hal Cross 15:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hal, demanding that we do exactly what you want (remove the category) is not a "compromise" or an "alternative," and the fact that this might end the content dispute is not reason enough to do it - you could just stop complaining about what has already been decided by consensus, and that would end the dispute too. You could also heed the policy on undue weight, instead of misrepresenting it to argue that the AFA's opinion of itself deserves more weight. You do not speak for Wikipedia. Your interpretation of the categorization guidelines was unanimously rejected at the CfD. Rather than even discuss it there, you've continued this argument about the Homophobia category in the wrong place. This is completely inappropriate, and is an endrun around the most important pillar of Wikipedia: consensus (your doing so in the name of consensus, I find that quite ironic). --Cheeser1 20:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser1, I am not sure what they have been telling you on the Wikiquette alert page[71], but your comments above are quite unhelpful[72]. Your comments are far too much about me as an editor. Please focus on discussing the issues and alternatives. This subject is being discussed on this discussion page because there are multiple editors who consider there to be a problem to solve e.g.[73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81]. So myself and other editors are offering a range of sensible Wikipedia NPOV oritented solutions.

The article has had problems that existed well before myself and the other solution focused editors turned up, and they seem to originate from a situation where some editors are adding categories that do not comply with NPOV oriented categorization guidelines [82][83][84][85]. The conflict is pretty much guaranteed to continue as long as the current homophobia categorization is insisted upon.

Wikipedia has a flexible arrangement for grouping articles. The categorization scheme itself is not hierarchical, but a flexible network. There are alternatives to categories such as lists[86], many other categories that show the broader controversy, or not using categories at all.

There are a variety of categories to use in this issue, and the homophobia category has been objected to on this talkpage by multiple editors. The objections are not restricted to its existence. They are more focused on its inappropriate use for this article. That seems to be an issue that you have still failed to deal with. The broader consensus is what is important here[87], and you would do well to take that into account when we move to other areas of the dispute resolution. I am not making demands, I am simply discussing on the discussion page. Refusal to discuss, and discouraging discussion the many options as you are doing is quite uncooperative. So I repeat: Which of the alternatives to the homophobia category are more appropriate according to you? Hal Cross 05:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The most appropriate alternative is for you to stop refusing to accept the consensus that was established in the correct place, through the correct means of consensus-building, instead of insisting that the dispute will continue until you get what you want. You do not speak for Wikipedia or its general consensus, and you do not speak for the other editors - all of whom have either accepted consensus or who never disagreed with it in the first place. --Cheeser1 06:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the most appropriate alternative to the homophobia category is to follow Wikipedia consensus by following the guidelines on categorization. I'm currently abiding by consensus, but that doesn't mean I have to consent to the condemnatory category. The most appropriate way would be to follow NPOV oriented categorization guidelines[88], then the long term conflict is ended. Hal Cross 06:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I can elaborate upon this for the sake of clarity. Remember that the AFA are only one of many religious organizations who have been labeled as homophobic by critics during controversies. Those groups include the Muslim worshipers, Islamic states, Catholic Church, Protestant Churches, and so on. They are simply expressing their beliefs, providing services for those who wish to become ex-gay, and expressing their beliefs that homosexuals should not be officially recognized in marriage. As a reaction of opponents, they are being labeled as homophobic. They are not saying “We wish to spread the sacred word of homophobia”. They say “We wish to improve the world by spreading the teachings of scripture”. Thus, using the inherently pejorative, condemnatory, and vaguely defined, non-scientific term of homophobia is totally inappropriate. Its just a label used by one side of a controversy. The category of homophobia should be used for helping the reader to understand the concept of homophobia, and any research stream that researches the concept of homophobia can be included. But the application by one-sided condemnatory opinion on an organization's background beliefs is inappropriate. Hal Cross 11:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

But your comment points out quite clearly the reason the AFA should be in this category. You have one group of people saying that anyone who isn't completely pro-gay is homophobic. You have another group (which the AFA puts itself in) saying that homophobia is a vaguely defined non-scientific term that doesn't apply to them, even though they want to "improve the world" by getting the message out that scripture condemns homosexuals. The debate over what is actually homophobia and what is acceptable exercise of free speech is important to anyone interested in researching homophobia, and the AFA is deeply involved in that debate. Orpheus 13:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that Category:Homophobia does not state "organizations in this category that may be accused of homophobia, if placed in this category, are officially considered by Wikipedia to be homophobic and bad." Fred Phelps is just "expressing his beliefs," but I can't imagine you could make any argument against putting the founder of "godhatesfags.com" in the category. I'll also reiterate, yet again, that problems with the category are supposed to be discussed at the category. This is clearly a dispute about the category, and yet Hal, you continue to argue the point here (probably because the issue has already been settled in the correct venue - a CfD). I'm also surprised at the fact that there is still this slippery slope/camel's nose argument going on. (If we include the AFA, we have to include every religious group? Honestly? That's nonsense.) --Cheeser1 14:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The homophobia category is used as a proxy for the homophobic organizations category [89] in the case of the AFA. There is no significant contribution by the AFA to the notion of homophobia. Its just a label used by critics against many religious groups such as the AFA. Its controversial, and not self-evident at all due to the AFA's provision of services to ex-gays etc, and as such it is inappropriate for the homophobia category. A list could be a better option [90]. In fact there are many other alternatives that avoid breaching the Wikipedia categorization guidelines and help the reader at the same time. Insistence on the homophobia category simply sustains conflict and disruption. Hal Cross 15:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Another accusation. Hal, if you're going to accuse everybody but you of "building an attack article" or using a category as a "proxy" for another or any of the other accusations you've made, you better back it up with more than your opinion of what's going on (especially if your opinion contradicts consensus in the matter). Nowhere does Category:Homophobia state that groups in this category must "[contribute] to the notion of homophobia." You insist that it's a magical fact that this "breach[es] the Wikipedia categorization guidelines" but consensus disagrees. Dragging the CfD discussion here is just avoiding consensus by taking the debate to a place where you can get away with filibustering. I also enjoy the fact that you say it's not "evident" that they're associated with homophobia, and yet you seem to take for granted the idea that they provide "services" for "ex-gays." --Cheeser1 15:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Multiple editors have objected to the categorization. [91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98].Categorizing a Christian group with the homophobia category, just because some people call them homophobic, is totally inappropriate. All such religious groups are labeled homophobic in this way, from Abrahamic religions to Zoroastrians, because there is a global controversy concerning scripture, gay rights, marriage rights, laws and so on. Wikipedia does not categorize by opinion. The category can be removed. There are many other alternatives that serve the reader far better, and that do not breach NPOV oriented categorization guidelines[99]. Remove the category, and the conflict ends. Hal Cross 17:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a really great argument as to why these groups are not labeled homophobic. The category is "homophobia," and both the category page and the consensus surrounding the category clearly state that this is not the same as "category: homophibic." I will (for what the fifth time?) remind you that you're intentionally having this dispute in the wrong place because you don't like the consensus that was already established. Please stop. --Cheeser1 20:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

All such religious groups are labeled homophobic in this way — I don’t know about where you live, but I live in California there are many churches that are very accepting of homosexuals and even show their support in gay parades. However, even if many religious organizations believe homosexuality is unmoral or unnatural, most don’t go to the extent the AFA and other Christian right groups do. The AFA are largely involved in the subject of homophobia, as shown through their activism.

Wikipedia does not categorize by opinion — You are wrong. Wikipedia does categorize by opinion when those opinions are verifable facts found in many reliable sources (not only sources by their "critics"). Wikipedia does not censor articles by ignoring verifable facts just because you are denying the AFA are homophobic because you don’t want them to be grouped together with organizations like the Westboro Baptist Church.—Christopher Mann McKay^talk 00:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I am presenting multiple alternatives to the homophobia category in order that Wikipedia guidelines be followed, and NPOV not be circumvented. I am also doing this to balance and NPOV the skewed article. The arguments for keeping the category in this article are contradictory.

The Homophobic Organizations category was created [100]and defended by you during the dispute on the AFA article last June [101] and it was deleted because it is categorizing by opinion. The homophobia category was not deleted as a category because although it is a vaguely defined and controversial term in itself[102], the concepts proposed to explain the term are presented in the category. The category may be useful for related concepts, and research streams that examine the notion of homophobia (and tend to conclude that its just a pejorative value judgment). There are probably better and more accurate names for the category though.

This Wikipedia guideline [103] is not censorship, and I repeat, to my knowledge I have never removed any well sourced criticism from the article. In general criticism gets added, but none is removed.

Editors wishing to keep the category tend to urgently disallow positive views on the AFA in the article[104][105], and urgently disallowed context and the broader concerns of the AFA[106][107]. The article is currently one-sided and is biased towards making AFA look homophobic. The AFA actually are concerned about many issues such as ridding media of porn and child pornography.

The arguments for the category are contradictory. There is the argument that it is associated with homophobia so it should be categorized as such, and its not about homophobic organizations. Then there is a denial that organizations such as the Catholic Church can also be added, and to argue that there is the insistence that the AFA is a homophobic organization. Editors wanting to keep the article in the category are not open to any of the many other alternatives to the category[108], they are just presenting conflicting and anti-guideline arguments to keep it in.

The argument for removing the category is that it is clearly a one-sided lable used in a controversy, and its part of a global controversy that involves a multitude of religious organizations who promote the idea of sexual self-determination (the choice to follow a heterosexual lifestyle), including the Catholic Church and Islamic organizations. It’s a verifiable fact that the homophobia label is used in controversy, and its just categorization by negative opinion, and there are multiple alternatives to the category that will serve the reader better and will not have Wikipedia give a conclusion on the condemnatory side of the controversy. Once the category is removed, the category guidelines are properly followed, and the conflict can stop. Hal Cross 04:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hal, you don't get to decide that the category must be removed, or else the conflict will go on. If you intend on disrupting this article (as you have been for some time) to make a point about the category, you are way out of line. Please, for the last time, stop making your points in the wrong place, especially when consensus has spoken and no one but you is still arguing this nonsense. --Cheeser1 04:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser1. Please address the issues and stop making this personal. The categorization has been objected to by many editors[109][110][111][112][113][114][115][116], and if you hadn’t put a stop to the RfC yourself[117] after so many objections were being made, then more editors would be turning up to express their objections to the categorization. The conflict is over the categorization of the American Family Association into the homophobia category. This is not about the CfD. The concern is not about deleting the category in its entirety, only its proper and careful use with reference to categorization guidelines. The way the category is used is highly relevant. If organizations are categorized by the negative views that people have about them during controversies, then NPOV policy is circumvented. The Catholic Church, Islamic groups, various government bodies and marriage laws, companies such as Ford, NGOs such as the Red Cross, have all been associated with homophobia during controversies. Homophobia is a label used by only one side of the controversy. Categorizing as homophobia is totally inappropriate. LGBT rights and religion is one category that will be more appropriate as it contains more of the relevant issues and the category itself does not imply that Wikipedia is taking a stance or concluding either way. It is either 1; Religious rights and expression 2. Homophobia. Wikipedia does not choose either way. Your categorization into the homophobia category is one-sided, and uses a pejorative value judgment that is used in a controversy. Such blatantly unbalanced editing goes against the very notion of NPOV, and the broader views in the article have been similarly blinkered and suppressed e.g. [118]. The categorization condemns the beliefs of religious followers, and directs the reader to only one side of the controversy. It is totally inappropriate. Hal Cross 06:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hal, there is no gay consipracy to slander the AFA. Your edit summary summarizes your argument well: The homophobia category should not be used to condemn religious beliefs. Fortunately, that is not how this category is used. Dispute resolved, discussion over, the end. This has, of course, already been worked out in the correct place. Your continued disruptive insistence that we drag out this argument in the wrong place until you get your way is not "making it personal" - it's me trying to get you to follow the rules and cut it out. --Cheeser1 06:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Removing the category will in no way be a conclusion that there is a gay conspiracy. The conflict started long before I came, and will continue as long as there are editors who object to the categorization e.g.[119][120][121][122][123][124][125][126]. The categorization as homophobia is categorizing by negative value judgment, and it is categorizing by a person or group’s beliefs. There are many such religious beliefs globally and they present the other side of the controversy (e.g. its scripture, spiritual development, choice of sexual self-determination etc). The mis-categorization that you are following is the same thing as categorizing any religious group’s beliefs or actions based on those beliefs as homophobia. It is one-sided and it is an abuse of Wikipedia. It seems to be part of the soapbox that has plagued this article for the long term. The categorization of any such religion or religious group into the homophobia category is totally one-sided, condemnatory, and inappropriate. Hal Cross 07:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You have been told countless times you need to address these issues on Category Talk:Homophobia--not on this talk page. You need to quit disrupting Wikipedia by refusing to use Wikipedia in a proper manner. Issues with the category in general, such as not applying the category to any religious organization, should not be discussed here. Why don’t you understand this simple concept?—Christopher Mann McKay^talk 07:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, it would be nice if you quit repeating posting the same text you have previously posted multiple times. We are aware of your arguments, repeating stating it will not change anything. Thanks.—Christopher Mann McKay^talk 07:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Editors who have been categorizing the American Family Association with the Homophobia categorization, and the Homophobic Organizations categorization[127], and who generally remove the broader concerns of the AFA[128][129], have been avoiding the issues and trying to stop reasonable input and discussion[130]. Other editors such as Sam have been encouraging the discussion of these issues. This is not a CfD. Its about the inappropriate categorization of the American Family Association. There are and have been many editors objecting to the inappropriate and one-sided categorization as homophobia. Please address the issues. Hal Cross 04:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hal, you're complaining that we won't "discuss the issues" but unless you start working within policy (specifically this one and this one), we can't discuss any issues because you're carrying out this conversation in an (intentionally) disruptive fashion. Furthermore, these accusations that there is some conspiracy of of gay-rights activists who are slandering the AFA needs to stop. It's totally inappropriate. --Cheeser1 04:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

And please keep in mind that you absolutely do not speak for consensus or for others. You keep copy-pasting the same list of a dozen links to random comments by others, but they can speak for themselves and would if they agreed with you. You have a history of totally misrepresenting people's comments to support your singular opinions, so please stop. --Cheeser1 04:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. And please address the issues. I am referring directly to the categorization guidelines [131], and I am referring to the objections made by other editors in the long and short term, to the homophobia categorization of this religious group. It is clearly a hot button POV category in the case of application to religious organizations. I am also working directly with the consensus policy on this point. I am abiding by consensus, and offering compromises[132] to improve this and all similar articles. You are claiming that you have won the vote for the category and you are dismissing all compromises and fixing on a pejorative value judgment for the categorization of a religious organization. The issues are multiple and apply to a set of controversies that relate to a wide array of religious organizations. The issues have been presented and for the most part, have been dismissed as if they can been voted away by any editors who want the homophobia or homophobic organizations category[133]. Now, this is a discussion page. Please assume good faith and address the issues Hal Cross 08:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hal, you don't get it. Nobody said you're acting in bad faith, but even good faith editors can be disruptive. Your actions speak for themselves - if not editor's actions could ever be questioned due to WP:AGF, we'd have no rules but that one. Furthermore, you do not speak for policy - consensus does. And consensus has been established in this matter. You don't speak for anyone else, and if it were a "hot button POV category" why is no one but you stirring up an argument (here of all places)? No one else has kept objecting past the CfD but you, and you're doing it in the wrong fashion. --Cheeser1 10:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No you don’t get it. There are many editors who have strong NPOV oriented concerns with the homophobia categorization of the American Family Association. E.g. [134], and [135][136][137][138][139][140][141][142]. It is a guaranteed given that there will be objections to the homophobia categorization of any religious group now and in future. And the reason is because it is just a pejorative value judgment label given by critics in a controversy that relate directly to the beliefs of the accused. There are many other non-condemnatory categories that will be far more appropriate for the reader to explore the relevant issues. Insisting on the single category is plainly against consensus in practice [143] especially when there are so many alternative compromises on the table. Dismissing discussion and dismissing the issues by claiming you have won the vote [144] will simply get you a reputation for running away from relevance. The article is currently disgracefully skewed in encyclopedic terms, and the categorization is conflict-provoking and inappropriate. So please address the issues. Hal Cross 10:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Time for formal Mediation?

It doesn't seem like anyone is willing to give an inch here on either side of this, and while I certainly don't speak for anyone else but me, I think those of us not quite so entrenched feel that it has become futile for us to participate in this debate. Instead of everyone saying the same things over and over and over, why not involve someone from the outside who the community trusts to mediate debates and disagreements like this? Anything has to be better than the endlessly circular argument this talk page has devolved into. AniMate 23:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes AniMate. Mediation has always been fine by me. The category doesn't seem to have an inch of flexibility, though the many alternatives to the category have already shown miles of compromise, and a mediator will help allow the broader sourced views get into the article. Wavy 10 FAN also mentioned the mediation solution, though some editors may be unhappy with it [145]. I'm sure mediation will help. Thanks for the prompt. Hal Cross 02:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what there is to discuss. Consensus was established to use this category, and to use it in this fashion. What more is there to mediate? --Cheeser1 04:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind going through mediation if the outcome is respected by all parties - anything to end the pointless repetition. Orpheus 04:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Mediation will help to reduce the likelihood that any one particular fact or worldview is given undue weight or pushed unduly above any other. And a mediator will probably also reduce the likelihood of any particular conclusion (condemnatory or otherwise) being made by Wikipedia on this controversial subject or its broader global gay vs religious rights controversies. Mediation will also most likely help with the so-far denied inclusion of all relevant views, pace the proceedings, hopefully encourage editors to address the issues and stop editors from making things personal all the time. Its a constructive approach. Hal Cross 04:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

We haven't even started mediation, and Hal has already declared what the outcome of mediation will be - what he wants to happen. Lovely. --Cheeser1 05:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser1, I guess I could suggest that you look at it this way: it's your chance to prove you are right... or you and Hal Cross could keep on going on and on and on. That's a great way to write an encyclopedia. This situation seems a prime candidate for following the steps of dispute resolution. Why not get out of the trenches and stop the fighting? AniMate 05:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

What fighting? I just keep pointing him to policy about forumshopping, filibustering, and failure to acknowledge the consensuses established through things like CfDs. I've asked him to stop. I keep asking him to stop. Instead we get a hundred copy-pastes of his spiel on how he represents some consensus opinion (contrary to the unanimous CfD), and that he speaks for the "correct" interpretation of policy. He didn't even read any of the policies I asked him to read, let alone stop insisting that he's in charge of how to interpret policy or that he represents some group of editors fighting to use WP:UNDUE to somehow give the AFA more of a voice in its own article. --Cheeser1 05:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You are apparently not taking into account that some of the contributors here (including me) have reservations about this category being applied here... or does consensus never change? Again, get out of your trench. This really sucks, because in theory and ideology I think I agree with you. However, I see no reason why you are so opposed mediating this and moving on. AniMate 05:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict with CMMK below) I'm not opposed to it. I just don't even see why we're having this discussion - I don't need the chance to "prove [myself] right." The discussion at the CfD and at the category in question was settled: the category was not deleted, and its use was confirmed by consensus. Hal didn't like the answer, and had already been inappropriately nominating the category for deletion without following the appropriate consensus-building procedure. He continues to argue this here, because he didn't get what he wanted over there. I'm all for mediation, but isn't it time for someone to step in and say "this has been settled, move on"? I'm not happy to continue to get the copy-paste of a dozen links and an explanation of how everybody but Hal is on a quest to demonize the AFA, and I'd love to see mediation end this, but mediation is for disputes that haven't been settled, and I'm not at all convinced that Hal will abide by the outcome of mediation (which is nonbinding, isn't it?). Also, in case anyone missed it, Hal doesn't even know what WP:FORUMSHOP is about - he never bothered to read it. --Cheeser1 05:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but I also think mediation is a complete waist of time. Why discuss this any further? It has been settled in multiple places and Hal Cross has stated he will not agree to anything but removing the category, so discussing it further will not settle anything because Hal will not accept an agreement unless it includes removing the category, which multiple users will disagree to and there will be no compromise. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 05:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. See: here and here. --Cheeser1 05:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to remind everyone that I was drawn into this discussion by a report at the WP:WQA. I tried to remind everyone to keep the discussion civil, but it was mostly a content concern. Since it seemed pretty clear to me, I gave an outside view - exactly what Hal claims he wants. But it didn't agree with him, and since then I've been accused of "overstepping" some authority or acting out of my role (I have none, the WQA is completely non-authoritative) by daring to get involved in the dispute and take the side of the people who disagree with him. If mediation results in something other than what he wants, he's already made clear that it would simply cause him to reject the mediation process as unfair and non-NPOV. --Cheeser1 05:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I agree with CMMK and Cheeser1 that mediation shouldn't be necessary here, but unless anyone else has an idea how to stop Hal drowning out the useful discussion on this page, it seems like the only option at this point. Orpheus 05:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I might add that mediation will only be helpful if everyone agrees to abide by the result - I'm not confident that Hal will do that, based on his response to my question on his talk page. Orpheus 05:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Mediation is "the intention of achieving a steady result, preferably a long-lasting agreement between the parties". Mediation seems pointless because multiple users will not agree to remove the category and Hal Cross will not agree to keep it. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 05:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser1, please stop giving your own negative interpretations of my constructive comments. I am keen on the dispute resolution as always. A mediator may even be able to encourage you to address the issues without breaching Wikiquette by criticizing editors on every other post. Mediation would likely help reduce any such personalization of the issues.

CMMK, The homophobia categorization of the American Family Association is only one issue, its inappropriateness has been highlighted by many, and its removal is supported by a lot of editors[146][147][148][149][150][151][152][153]., and many other editors before I turned up. Mediation will probably help to give Wikipedia guidelines a better chance and keep all issues in better order, it should help to get the article unstuck from its current skewering on the homophobia issue and allow the other facts to be heard, and should also allow for a better chance of other relevant views to be presented at some point. Hal Cross 05:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hal, asking you to properly engage in the consensus building process instead of forumshopping (read that one yet?) or filibustering is not "personalization" of any sort. I'm sure you love pretending like I've breached Wikiquette because you're still upset about the fact that I was attracted here from the WQA and that I dared to step in and give an outside view that disagreed with you. But that doesn't change how consensus is (supposed to be) built. I'll also point out that even though Hal just provided 8 links, citing "multiple editors," there are only 4 editors commenting (the rest are duplicates) and they are as follows:

User:Marvin Diode, who asked us to heed User:Sam, who doesn't agree with Hal
User:AniMate, who should be quoted with reservation since his opinion has varied quite a bit
User:Jinxmchue, who retired from editing Wikipedia due to his inability to push his POV as much as he'd have liked to
User:Eiler7, who appears to have contributed to the CfD and related discussions and accepted the consensus that was established there, despite disagreeing.

That's one editor who one might reasonably say supports Hal's opinion, for whom Hal could conceivably speak. One. And he let the issue go. Seriously Hal, why do you think that you speak for all of Wikipedia (except me, CMMK, and Orpheus)? --Cheeser1 06:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser1, if you are truly interested in improving the situation on this article, then you have nothing to lose by engaging in the mediation part of the dispute resolution. Any editor who wants to give a chance for all relevant views to be presented, and would like to increase the likelihood that due weight is given to all views, would jump at the chance to civilly engage in mediation. Hal Cross 07:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Which is why, despite my opinion that it would be a silly exercise, I have from the very start stated that I will participate and support any mediation. And at least I intend to abide by the outcome, regardless. --Cheeser1 07:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser1, I am not demanding any conditions from anyone, despite Orpheus and CMMK having broken[154][155] the past compromise agreement[156][157] that had the homophobia category removed from the article. They drove away constructive editors due to that breach of agreement. Mediation suits me fine. Hal Cross 07:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

(od) That's a ridiculous accusation. The only reason the homophobia category was removed last time was because homophobia is a subcategory of discrimination. At the time, the article was in Category:Discrimination. When it was taken out of that category, the "no parent cat and sub cat in the same article" provision no longer applied, and User:Kookoo Star (who, by the way, was not involved in the previous discussion) added it back in. Stop trying to rewrite what actually happened, it's getting annoying. Orpheus 08:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Orpheus, for since before I arrived, editors have been objecting to the homophobia categorization. Editors argued for removal due to the homophobia categorization being controversial and condemnatory[158][159][160]. There was a final agreement. But then Kookoo Star turned up to restore the category[161], and you started following suit. You followed the same kneejerk revert pattern as before whenever the category was removed according to that agreement[162]. Despite the broken agreement, I am still not asking for any conditions for mediation. Hal Cross 08:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Reversion

All right, Hal, I'll bite. What was wrong with the material I added and you removed? Orpheus 13:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I'll say that it appears to be properly sourced (and does not, as may be the habit for some, misrepresent its sources). It also does quite a bit to further justify the inclusion of the category, regardless of whether the version without said paragraph merits using the category. Could that be the problem? --Cheeser1 —Preceding comment was added at 15:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

As my edit summary said, the AFA specifically offer no information whatsoever on the definition or terminology of homophobia. You may as well have entitled the section "Homophobia terminology pantomime by editors who want the homophobia category to apply to all Christian groups". Wikipedia categorization guidelines make this a no win situation for those who want the homophobia category. Some religions, such as Catholic groups do actually have something to say about the homophobia term. Adding the view of a person from another Christian group just makes the category inappropriate for the AFA and it makes the homophobia categorization of religious groups look more inappropriate per se. If any religious group contributes to the homophobia term, it would be the major ones, and that issue belongs in other non-condemnatory categories. Or perhaps you would like to populate the homophobia category with all the mainstream religious groups. They have something to say about the term, whereas the AFA simply does not. You may have caused a ridiculous amount of trouble with trying to categorize this article with the pejorative term. Just think of how ridiculous it will look when you have a large group of editors quoting categorization guidelines against you. Hal Cross 16:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hal, a group of a single editor is a trivial group, and "Catholic groups have something to say about the term" is an exceedingly vague thing. Consensus was that the category already apples, and even so there is work to make this article include verifiable information about the term and the AFA, which was the only condition you seem to think will allow us to use the category. But now you insist that it is impossible to meet your only condition, which is an excellent catch 22, but doesn't help anything. --Cheeser1 17:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Its not a catch 22. Its just a broad consensus based guideline that shows how inappropriate the categorization as homophobia is to the beliefs of religious groups such as the AFA. If you can find any AFA statement that say something significant about the actual term, then present it here. If it shows more controversy, then it makes the category look even more inappropriate (which it will do). I know its a hard situation for you, but hey, I'm not the one trying to force a condemnatory category by treating dispute resolution and consensus as if it is some sort of permanently binding vote that allows Wikipedia to conclude whatever you want it to conclude. Hal Cross 18:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hal, you do not speak for Wikipedia. Your interpretation of how policy is to be correctly applied is not what rules Wikipedia. Wikipedia has no rule about not reporting on things where people disagree or where controversy exists. Also, this is not "a hard situation for [me]" and no one is treating consensus like a permanently binding vote (however, we are asking that you abide by the rules: consensus was established, and you refuse to listen). There is a difference. --Cheeser1 18:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

So do you have any information about any AFA contribution to the homophobia term? Judging by the section that I reverted, there is simply nothing to say. Its just a condemnatory label used by critics who disagree with the AFA's expression of religious beliefs during a controversy. You may as well try to give the homophobia categorization to the Church of England article. Hal Cross 18:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hal has insisted that his edit summary says it all: The AFA have made no significant contribution to homophobia terminology.. Unfortunately, that's a lie. The sources given don't just speak to a broad discussion of the term, but to the AFA's part therein (two of the three sources I can access, the moment I read them, I find immediately that they speak specifically about the AFA and unequivocally establish the article content they are being used to support). Because his reason was incorrect (knowingly incorrect, if he read the sources, and if he didn't, he shouldn't be removing content on those grounds), I have re-added the properly-sourced material, material the he demanded to provide backup for the category he wants removed. Continuing to remove information on a false pretense is disruptive, in order to advance the goal of removing the category, and is gravely inappropriate. --Cheeser1 18:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I'm 100% with Cheeser1 on this one. It's a well sourced addition, it justifies the category, and I don't understand your objections. AniMate 21:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)