This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
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.
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)[reply]
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. --Cheeser118:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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). --Cheeser119:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 McKaytalk19:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Orpheus20:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Cross05:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 (egWhat 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." --Cheeser105:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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"? AniMate23:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. AniMate23:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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). Orpheus00:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Orpheus00:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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'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)[reply]
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. --Cheeser121:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Cross02:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Cheeser102:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 McKaytalk04:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'm afraid this doesn't make sense. Then we'd have to call Category:MusiciansasList 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. --Cheeser115:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Cross16:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Cheeser117:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the consensus is that Category:Homophobiaisnot 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)[reply]
*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. --Cheeser103:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
“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 Cross05:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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). --Cheeser113:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Cross02:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Cheeser102:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"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? ELIMINATORJR20:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Cross06:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Cheeser106:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Cross07:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Cheeser107:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(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).
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 Cross08:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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). --Cheeser108:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Cross09:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Cheeser115:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Cheeser107:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Cross08:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Cheeser108:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Cross08:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Cheeser115:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Cross15:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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). --Cheeser120:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Cross05:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Cross06:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
