This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Mississippi 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Mississippi. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Organizations 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

Archives

Archive 1: 2006-03-18—2007-07-17 Archive 2: 2007-07-17—2007-08-13 Archive 3: 2007-08-16—2007-09-21 Archive 4: 2007-09-21—2007-10-23 Archive 5: 2007-10-24—2007-11-06

Per an analysis of editing patterns and Checkuser data, I have indefinitely blocked the above user as a sockpuppet of an indefinitely banned user. Other users known to have edited this article in recent months also appeared in the checkuser, although they have not edited since apparently being caught in the autoblock resulting from the block of another account. ELIMINATORJR 23:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost funny how whenever there's a circumstance where someone is being disruptive or stalling progress, in the name of fairness or whatever, that the person turns out to be acting in mala fide. It's like, at some point there's just no way he could have been (in good faith) making the kinds of claims he was making. Aye. --Cheeser1 04:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the above two sections, does anyone now object to Category:Homophobia? If so, we should now be able to have a constructive, amicable discussion and come to a resolution one way or another. If not, then we can archive this and either begin therapy or hit the bottle, depending on individual preference. Orpheus 23:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No more objections here since you added the section on the AFA's involvement in homophobia. AniMate 00:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I no longer have a concern about how the article is categorized. I can't help but wonder why it couldn't get to this state any sooner. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 09:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've archived the old discussion, in the hopes that we can all put that behind us. Now that we can focus on, you know, the article, I want to sort of generate ideas about what needs to be done to get this article in tip-top shape. I can't think of anything right now (quite tired), so I'll put the question out there: what's to do next? --Cheeser1 05:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that I'm too narrowly focused to answer that right now. Personally, I intend not to look at or think about this article for a week or two so that I can return to editing it with a fresh mind. I did this once before, it was remarkably helpful. I would encourage others here to do a similar thing. The article will wait, and it'll be easier to be objective once this little tiff is forgotten. Orpheus 05:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Orpheus. I think I need to detox from the category war before I can actually think about editing this article again. I think that maybe focusing on editing puppies or kittens would help get me back in a productive and happy frame of mind. Clearly, work still needs to be done, though. AniMate 09:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've heard Orpheus (and AniMate too) say it, I've realized that I probably need a beak - not that I'm not busy enough anyway in the real world. But we can come back to this in a little while and start to move forward. --Cheeser1 15:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the things Hal kept trying to introduce was the AFA's own views on themselves. It might be an interesting section to show how the AFA's self descriptions differ from public perceptions. Just a thought, and back to puppies. AniMate 01:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, that would be interesting but it would have to be contextualized, and we can't do that (OR). I'd like to see some coverage in the media (or even better, academe) about the AFA's views of itself, but we can't do the compare-contrast on our own. --Cheeser1 02:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like things finally slowed down around here. I have a few recommendations if you're looking for ways to improve the article. Some of the content under "Activism" looks like it should go under "Criticism", in particular the "Anti-Semitism" section, which references activist groups which accuse the AFA of such. Same thing with the "Legal Activism" section: the text there is almost entirely about criticism that the AFA received in response to an ad. I won't make any changes because I know how such things can spin out of control, fast, and I don't have the time any more to get in long discussions about what should and shouldn't go into this article. Best of luck. Citadel18080 (talk) 07:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say go for it - the changes you're discussing look reasonable, and I think the intransigence we've seen in the past should hopefully stay in the past. Orpheus (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm opposed to moving the 'Anti-Semitism' section from 'Activism' to 'Criticism' because the 'Anti-Semitism' section has no cricitism of the AFA anywhere in it, it just explains the AFA's anti-semitic views. However, I think the 'Legal activism' section could be under 'Activism' or 'Criticism'--I don't really care. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 21:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to notice some of the sources used to support some of the material in the article comes from sources that themselves are known for their bias. Media Matters, for example. Anything from that source is as biased as anything from the AFA. I'll bet if the Media Matters wiki page had outrageous claims and those claims were supported by references to the AFA, they would be removed faster than lightening. So I do not understand why Media Matters is taken as an authoritative source on the AFA. If the facts really were as the article states, then main stream media sources would be available. Media Matters is not a main stream media source.

Worse, sometimes entire subheadings are supported by Media Matters and other sources of similar biases or political alignments. Not a single main stream media source could be found. I just read a section that looked interesting to me if it were true, so I checked the links, but every link in the section was to biased sources diametrically opposed to the AFA and I found it not credible. I simply could not give credence to material about the AFA that is backed up only by material from Media Matters and the like and not backed up by main stream media sources.

I thought people here should know that. I purposely did not mention specifics because the issue is the matter at hand, not me personally or my specific views. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to have to mention specifics, because if we haven't identified the problem yet, alluding to it isn't going to help - I don't know what you personally or your views have to do with telling us what sections you mean specifically. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no specifics. I do not want to bias anyone's thinking. I'll just let them decide for themselves if they are interested in taking a look. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently seeking further guidance on this issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#MMFA_-_Media_Matters_for_America

Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you address your specific concerns here? Making vague, general assertions about some news source isn't going to give us anything tangible to discuss. If FOX is a reliable news source, despite its well known bias, then why not this? MMFA is cited twice in this article. Explain why it is not a source suitable for what it substantiates? One is a quotation, the other is a statement that includes explicit acknowledgment of the source, in the criticism section. I don't think your concerns are relevant, but how would we know, since you refuse to discuss specifics? --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is more general than specific. The wiki community will benefit generally by the outcome of my query about MMfA on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. I am certain that is the best forum to address the issue. Besides, finding the MMfA links is easy--you have done it yourself. Combine that with what I said at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and my concerns will be crystal clear. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you can't just wave your hands and say "liberal bias." You've decided that because a source criticises the AFA that they are "diametrically opposed to the AFA" and therefor not neutral or not credible. I find plenty of sources about Fred Phelps to be critical of him, if not diametrically opposed to his views. That speaks nothing of their credibility. FOX news is horribly biased, but we still cite it as a reliable source of news. I've pointed out the exact places this source is cited, and how it reasonably substantiates the text in question. Your concerns are at best hand-waving, which isn't going to amount to much when you really need to be making clear, specific points about how or why this source is unreliable. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The MMfA source reliability was/is still being addressed on the talk page for MMfA as well. Look there for reasons. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. That thread died in November. Yilloslime (t) 06:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put it this way - make a point relevant to this article, specifically relating to the text attributed to MMFA. Otherwise, what you say has no bearing on this article unless you can establish some broad, community-wide consensus that the MMFA is never a reliable source. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And that is why I went to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, which is even more relevant since as we see the MMfA talk thread "died in November." --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 12:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far the picture I am getting (and the MMfA talk thread has been revived) is that MMfA may or may not be a reliable source. It may be reliable as a source about the MMfA itself, but it may not be reliable as a source for the specific content it promotes as in its interpretation of the media report it is discussing -- it is much preferable to use that source directly and cut out the middleman. Further, I see discussion is then turning toward whether MMfA or the source it is citing is notable in the first place, as in is MMfA creating a tempest in a teapot that no one else in the world cares about, so for notability reasons would not be encyclopedic.

While that conversation continues apace, it appears things are leaning toward a community consensus that MMfA is not a reliable source in the manner in which the MMfA sources are used in this AFA article.

Therefore, I suggest that anyone interested in maintaining the information supported here by the MMfA links find reliable and notable sources now. After consensus is reached on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, and based on the outcome of that consensus, I may be removing the material supported by unreliable and non-notable MMfA links and the like. So now would be a good time for the people who included the material supported by MMfA links to consider finding wikiworthy support for the material they added. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 12:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, now would be a good time for you to put down the stick - again. BLACKKITE 18:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, BlackKite. I read that policy. If it applies, it means this matter is at an end. I do not think it is, in part because it is still being discussed at Reliable Source Noticeboard. But since this matter is not at a natural end, that policy does not apply.

Further, a fair reading of this matter shows I have been extremely polite and respectful even despite comments as they are. But saying people might want to think about getting better sources, I was not using a stick, rather I was stating for the first time that I was leaning toward removing the material supported by the MMfA links. Quite the opposite of using a big stick, I used a gentle message to suggest people could look into this, and I did so without attempting to bias people one way or another.

So I'm somewhat at a loss why you said what you said, even saying I did it again. Would you care to explain? Okay if you don't -- I wouldn't want to induce others to beat a dead horse either. --00:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) Okay, I removed the section. It is based on weak links.

For example: "'The Athens, Ohio, man grew up in a Jewish home and developed a hostile attitude toward Christ. As a teenager, he used drugs, sold drugs and accumulated quite a juvenile crime record. But after a high school friend persistently witnessed to him, Keith accepted Christ during his junior year in high school.' Murphree offered no explanation for the man's 'hostile attitude toward Christ' other than his Jewish upbringing. Nor did he explain the man's drug use, drug dealing, and law-breaking in any way except in the context of his hostility toward Christ. Thus, Murphree linked Judaism to criminality."

I have to say that is a stretch. The sentence says a man "grew up in a Jewish home and developed a hostile attitude toward Christ." Depends on what the meaning of "and" is. Could it be "and also, besides that" or could it be "and as a direct result"? Who knows? But to then say "Thus, Murphree linked Judaism to criminality." I mean it is just not proven. The use of the conjunction "and" without more does not tell me the AFA thinks Jews are criminals.

I am not saying the facts are not as claimed. I am saying the facts as claimed are not supported by the underlying links.

Since the entire section suffers from the same problem, I have removed the entire section.

Further, I have provided a lot of notice that I might be removing the section. Therefore, if the section goes back up, it should have sources that truly support the truth of the matter asserted, or the existing links have to be sufficiently defended. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying the facts are not as claimed. I am saying the facts as claimed are not supported by the underlying links. Read WP:V one more time please. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need. Allstarecho made an edit to include a direct source and cut out the biased middleman MMfA, exactly as the Reliable Sources Noticeboard has recommended for a matter such as this. He is following wiki policy, as have I. As far as I'm concerned, case closed. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would direct everyone to the RSN post, because they are not in agreement wiht LaEC here. I'd also note that despite information being verifiable, LaEC removed it anyway. Bold is one thing, insisting that you're right when you're wrong (and perhaps hoping to slip that in now that he point is also moot) is not appropriate. LaEC, I would once again suggest that you reread WP:V. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In an effort to let this thread die a natural death, I've been resisting commenting here. Until now. As someone who participated in the RSN discussion, I'll point out that LAEC definitely does not have any sort of consensus from RSN on his side here, as he as implied in his edit summaries, e.g. "removing entire section per talk page here and especially Reliable Sources Noticeboard, and per reading of source material shows claims to be outlandish." Yilloslime (t) 23:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having that said, the section in question could definitely be improved upon. If Wildmon/AFA have made anti-semitic statements, surely we can come up with better sourcing that this and this; ideally the article could source statements directly back to Wildmon/AFA, although it's entirely possible that AFA could have scrubbed all the evidence from sources under its control in the intervening years—assuming of course that the anit-semetic statements were in fact made.Yilloslime (t) 00:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. But I don't expect a sarcastic and substantially misrepresentative quip about the RSN when I tell him (quite appropriately) to reread WP:V, which is exactly the policy that applies here. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amen brother. Yilloslime (t) 01:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you guys are experts. Excuse for not being one. Excuse me for assuming the RSN discussion was over -- I thought it was. I'm so sorry you have thought what I said was sarcastic. Maybe it was to someone who was an expert in wiki policies, but I'm not that person.

At least Yilloslime admits my concerns are essentially correct, as has that first editor that removed the MMfA link after I did. It's just too bad I have to be treated so poorly though, such as the constant attitude from Cheeser1 throughout, then I get called sarcastic merely for trying to provide support for my actions. I fail to see why people get so high and mighty that they won't work cooperatively with others.

Those links pointed out by me and now by Yilloslime have to go. Given I'll be summarily targeted for removing those obviously poor links like by the guy who called what I did bordering on vandalism, I'll leave it to others to do it. But if it takes too long, I'll do it myself. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He said improve, not remove. Of course, if you removed the links, then the whole section would have to follow, because it'd then be unsourced, wouldn't it? Nice try. Oh, and the reason you are being treated poorly is because this article has been stable since the last sockpuppets were blocked in November. Before you yourself were blocked last year, your editing pattern was oddly consistent with them [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] etc etc. Will you be pushing to remove the Homophobia cat again soon? BLACKKITE 02:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was one of the people who thought there might be some legitimacy to Hal Cross' claims, and even I'm rolling my eyes at this. Please don't start this edit war yet again LAEC. AniMate 03:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a low blow. BlackKITE assigns to me some nefarious thing I had not even thought of, then talks about a sock puppeteer that is not me, then points out I was blocked. Oh yeah, and raises an old argument from the past as if that means I can never contribute here again. Well I was only thinking of getting the underlying links from the bad links, just as recommended in the RSN. The sock puppetry accusation has nothing to do with me. And I was banned by Durova who herself was stripped of her admin rights due to her wrongfully banning multiple people in substantially similar circumstances. And this is what supposedly counts against me? This is totally unfair and a perfect illustration of what's wrong with wikipedia. Perfect--not only are the accusations made up or misleading, but my attempts to find better sources are corroborated by other editors. In other words, I'm right, the bad links need to be removed, and people agree to that. Yet the actions of a discredited admin are raised to get people to discredit me, and my edits are disparaged by the technique of literally making things up out of thin air and ascribing them to me -- and this is the third time BlackKITE has done that. I'm telling you, it's truly disgusting. Then people jump on the bandwagon and join BlackKITE in the frenzy. BlackKITE must have a lot of battle scars to take my legitimate and even compelling efforts to improve this article and ascribe to me again and again numerous nefarious things I never even thought of.

Can we all stop this silly personal junk and get back to editing this wiki page? Everyone here admits Yilloslime is right in saying the existing links are weak and need replacement. Right? As Yilloslime said, I'm essentially correct to seek improved links in this matter, is that not correct? So let's move on to fixing things without bringing up all this junk for no good purpose. And I am clearly not "edit warring." Can we also stop with the false accusations and just follow wiki policy to fix this article? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example of someone who agrees with me and actually removed a MMfA link from the page: [6] and the history says: "18:55, 30 January 2008 Allstarecho (Talk | contribs) (42,670 bytes) (→Anti-Semitism - can't get much more reliable than the subject's own source and article)" Yes, Allstarecho disagreed with removing the entire section, but then removed the MMfA link and replaced it in a manner consistent with the RSN in the matter I raised myself to ensure I was on the right track. Apparently, I am. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I just noticed Allstarecho removed some of the language to which I objected as well because the language was from the MMfA article and was not supported in the underlying source: [7]. I am happy to see people improving the article, thanks to my raising this point in the first place, without the need to ascribe things to me that are just not true. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you step away from this issue. It's clearly got you wound up, and you aren't going to help the situation by going on at length like this. Others, if tempted to add more than the short responses above, might want to consider doing the same instead. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not accusing you of anything. I am merely pointing out that it is not acceptable that this article becomes problematic again to the extent that it did last year. If you can improve the article and do so in line with a consensus on the talk page, then no problem. What we need to get away from is the edit-warring that occurred before. BLACKKITE 11:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BlackKITE has accused me of "edit warring," just now in the sentence above, based only on only one edit[8] and where people agree I am essentially right.[9][10] You have told me to stop beating a dead horse [11] when I was doing no such thing. BlackKITE has accused me of using trickery, editing similar to a sock puppet, and being banned,[12] but you did not explain the person who banned me had her admin rights stripped for summarily banning people. Then BlackKITE accused me of vandalism or incipient vandalism [13]

Frankly, every single time BlackKITE has said something to me has been in a manner inconsistent with good wikipedian citizenship, even here in BlackKITE's statement where BlackKITE claims he/she has not done the things he/she has. I was trying to give Cheeser1's advice to take a break a chance, but not if it means not responding to BlackKITE's further ad hominem argument.

Now the MMfA link has been removed and replaced with the underlying AFA link. But the text remaining in the wiki page comes only from the MMfA link and not from the AFA link or from any other source. All this time has gone by and there's no other source presented by anyone besides the MMfA one for the claim that the AFA thinks Judaism leads to criminality or whatever? I don't care what the facts are, just that an awful accusation is being broadcast to the world based purely on the view of a writer at MMfA, an organization obviously opposed to the subject of the wiki page. That is fundamentally unfair; I'm sure wikipedia does not support that. Therefore I'll be removing it soon, but I'll do what Cheeser1 suggests and lay low for a little. Hopefully, someone will do the right thing before I have too.

I'm sorry I was forced out of my laying low by further false accusations by BlackKITE. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 12:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the other regular editors of this article can see exactly what is going on here (though I am not going into detail here) and so I will say only that nothing I have said above is false, and my warning to you on your talk page stands. Black Kite 15:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how is a single edit in months "edit warring" or "vandalism", especially where people agree with me generally? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My previous edit on this wiki page was almost 4 whole months ago. I must be the worst "war editor" in the world. I am concerned, however, that you are personally persecuting me by persisting in your evidently false claims against me, even after I specify, with links, exactly what you are doing and claiming falsely. Where in the world do you assign to yourself the power to accuse a person who makes a single edit that is essentially on target but done inartfully, the first edit in four months no less, as a "vandal" and a "war editor"? I hope it's not because I am forced to repeatedly defend myself against your repeatedly false statements against me.

I sense what you are doing is defending baseless smears against the AFA by repeatedly harassing an author who seeks to comply with wiki policy under the circumstances we have here, namely, the source of the claimed material in the wiki page is solely the view of the MMfA article and not of the underlying source citied in the MMfA article or of any other source. Such material must be removed. It will be removed eventually. One way or another, baseless claims get removed from wikipedia, whether by me or by anyone else acting fairly and in compliance with wiki policy. Ad hominem attacks against me will avail you little, except a temporary delay before the baseless material is ultimately removed.

And that is the key that I have been at this whole time, improving the wiki article, in this case by removing baseless claims. I am only so wordy on this talk page initially to go slowly and work with several communities, then only as a response to your relentless and repeated ad hominem argument. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LaEC, I would once again ask that you let this go for the time being. I would also remind you that you were removing verifiable claims, which should be included per WP:V. You asserted that even though you believed they were absolutely verifiable and unquestionable, their source wasn't good enough. That's not how Wikipedia works. Read WP:V and take a break. Seriously. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. My point is the claim's only source is the MMfA article that was removed. So while it is verifiable when referencing the removed MMfA article, it is not verifiable anywhere else in the world, and in all this time no other such source material has been provided. It would be like my claiming some politician has three heads and basing that claim on a single source having a web site opposing that politician and those like him or her, but nowhere else is it reported that the politician has three heads. If the wiki article says the politician has three heads and sources that one source, then that once source is removed, if no other sources say the politician has three heads, then that claim needs to be removed from the wiki article.

Honestly, I was shocked but open minded to hear of the claim that the AFA was anti-semitic. So I did what anyone would do, look up the references, that's why they are there. Reading them, I found that they made very strong claims and based those claims on linked documents. Looking at the linking documents, I found that the very strong claims were not supported by the linked documents. Sometimes not even any support at all. And I found all four sources used to support the argument that the AFA was anti-Semitic were similarly affected. Of course I could keep that in my mind and move on, but we are all supposed to improve Wikipedia. In this case, improving Wikipedia means removing baseless sources. You know, of course, there is a lot of interest in the value of Wikipedia versus the value of Encyclopedia Britannica. There are a lot of claims that Wikipedia is "Wackypedia" precisely because people can add anything, anytime, and sometimes it's wacky. But Jimbo Wales says true, but the power of Wikipedia is that other people will remove the wacky stuff, so generally the information is of real value. In the case of this AFA page, the claim that the AFA is anti-Semitic is based on sources who cannot stand the AFA and who cite to evidence from the AFA that, in reality, does not support the claims made. That is exactly why people deride this site as "Wackypedia," Jimbo Wales is in full support of people who resolve such issues, and that is what I have attempted and am attempting to do. Instead of see a problem and ignoring it, I acted like a good Wikipedian and attempted to work within the community to resolve it. And I have meet with some success as in some people agree with what I am doing generally, although some or all do not agree with my method of that single edit I made. For that I hereby apologize. Perhaps I should not have removed it all at once. I admit it was a stupid thing to do. But on you let this go link you gave me I found Hanlon's razor, which states "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." Bingo.

Be that as it may, it is refreshing to speak with you about the issues and not extraneous matters. And I will/am cooling down, but BlackKITE's false claims about me should not go unanswered else by my silence they become true. And he should not be on me as he is given Hanlon's razor. Do you realize every single contribution of his here has been predominantly about me and not about the wiki page? I hereby ask that BlackKITE let this go for the time being too. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 12:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone. As I told you LaEC, on my talk page in reply to your questions, you should stop focusing on removing the content and instead focus on improving the content. If you don't like the sources present, find new ones as they are, as I have shown, out there. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 06:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a reference from an academic journal which backs up the MMfA perspective. Hopefully this will solve the problem. Orpheus (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Is it available online? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I just linked to it. It might be paywalled, but I'm online right now at major academic institution and I have access. Yilloslime (t) 23:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried the link and got this: "This item requires a subscription* to Modern Judaism Online. * Please note that articles prior to 1996 are not normally available via a current subscription. In order to view content before this time, access to the Oxford Journals digital archive is required. If you would like to purchase short-term access you must have a personal account. Please sign in below with your personal user name and password or register to obtain a user name and password for free." --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Totally irrelevant. Yilloslime even said it was probably behind a paywall. That has no bearing on the use of the source. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The relavant section says

Henry Ford's equation of the immorality of the movies with the Jewish backgrounds of film producers was revived in the 1980s by Reverend R. L. Hymers of the Fundamentalist Baptist Tabernacle in Los Angeles and Reverend Donald Wildmon of the American Family Association. Hymers warned that the alleged blasphemy of The Last Temptation of Christ, Martin Scorsese's film based on Nikos Kazantzakis's novel, would "bring hatred on Jewish people" because Lew Wasserman was chairman and Sidney Sheinberg president of the releasing company, MCA.14 Wildmon threatened a boycott of television networks, whose sins he put at the doorstep of the "59 percent of the people . . . responsible for network programs [who] were raised in Jewish homes."15

Ref 15 is "Steve Weinstein, "Religious Right May Be in for a Fight," Los Angeles Times, 20 May 1991, Calendar section, p. 1; Glenn R. Simpson, "Four Years Later, Buchanan's Advisers, Not His Words, Draw Criticism," Wall Street Journal, 22 February 1996, p. A20." Yilloslime (t) 01:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found another source, still pay: http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/modern_judaism/v020/20.1brackman.html But since I still do not have access, I still cannot make the necessary determination as to whether the article supports the claimed statements, etc.

I can't believe while discussing this, while Yilloslime provides an alternate source as I just did, and when I merely quoted what I got when I tried Yilloslime's link, that Cheeser1 finds went another angle to go on a strafing run on me by saying what I added was "totally irrelevant." I fail to see the need for that based merely on my quoting an access delimiter. Once and only once one of Cheeser1's responses to me was predominantly based on an effort to improve the article. To encourage more of that behavior, I left a wiki smile on his talk page with the section header of "Peace."[14] Do you know Cheeser1 actually reverted that? [15] He keeps telling me to cool off while he removes my "peace" offering and wiki smile. That tells me quite a lot about Cheeser1, his operation within the wiki community, and the likelihood that his edits and criticisms are based on POV. I mean really, reverting a wiki smile. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grow up. It's my userspace, I am allowed to do what I want. I archive inactive discussions, and since a smile doesn't need archiving, I removed it. Stop making a fuss about nothing. You're making irrelevant points, and you insist that you're improving the article by removing verifiable content that you don't even object to. If you want to assume bad faith that's fine, but I'm just pointing out that your point was irrelevant (which Yilloslime did in advance and you ignored). It was irrelevant, and I'm obviously allowed to say so. Don't play the "oh gosh, everybody's attacking me and I've never done anything to deserve it." No one is attacking you and the responses to your inappropriate deletion and incorrect/invalid comments on this talk page are perfectly reasonable. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting a bit of deja-vu here. A source is a source regardless of whether or not you, personally, can access it instantly and for free. You have several options for viewing this article:

1. Visit your local university and ask for some library time.
2. Write to the journal and ask for a reprint.
3. Pay the $25 (or whatever it is for this particular journal) to get one-off access to this article.
4. Enrol in a local university and get free access to all their journals while you study.
5. Make friends with someone who is a student or faculty member at a university and get them to download it for you (note: this is illegal).

I would also note that posting the relevant extract is also probably illegal, in that fair use doesn't extend to article talk pages. I doubt anyone will notice, but I would discourage people from posting verbatim extracts from copyrighted works. Orpheus (talk) 04:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orpheus, I understand and agree with you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just made some edits and BlackKITE made some edits in a manner evidencing cooperation with everyone here, including myself, even improving my edits. Therefore, I hereby drop all my concerns regarding BlackKITE as expressed in the section above. Indeed Orpheus and I have been working together here fine as well, whereas months ago there was a major kerfuffle. So I am relieved, and it appears people can starting working together again cooperatively to improve this page. It is still loaded with POV and I found more links to "publiceye," "MMfA," and other questionable sources, but at least we can address these matters in a civil fashion. BlackKITE, for example, shored up some weak links with several others. This is great. Let's keep at it. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain these POV problems you believe exist on this page? Keep in mind WP:UNDUE, among other policies. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a number. It would be a big task to explain them all. But look at the last edits I made to the top paragraphs. They used to say the AFA seeks to criminalize homosexuality. I changed that to say something truthful. Let alone POV, is was just untruthful. Criminalization of homosexuality is attempting to make homosexuality a crime. The AFA was not doing that, and the link provided there or on a related POV edit in the top was to a Google search that went to, guess where, Media Matters for America and the PublicEye. So saying AFA seeks to criminalize homosexuality is a) untruthful, b) POV, c) unverifiable (because it is not true), and d) a very serious charge to be left on Wikipedia where all the search engines in the world will now link the AFA to the criminalization of homosexuality, forever, because someone sought to inject POV and worse into this page.

Then there was the false claim that the AFA sought to force everyone to use Christmas, or something like that. That was false as well and suffered from the same defects. Now it says something more accurate and truthful and verifiable, and I think BlackKITE added reliable sources as well. What a difference.

Things like that. The article is loaded with things like that. I don't have to be the only one to find them -- you can help too.

Now I'm not trying to not answer you by not providing specifics. I'm just very busy and do not have the time to answer your question, so I merely gave examples from my last recent edits. I'll be making more like them. Already the first paragraph looks more encyclopedic instead of appearing as it did as if it were written by Media Matters for America staffers. --14:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I just read parts of the UNDUE policy you suggested. It includes: "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority." I read that as a means to exclude any Media Matters for America or PublicEye view if they are a "tiny-minority" view. Indeed, the impossibility of finding supporting sources from major media sources is one possible indication of just how "tiny-minority" the MMfA views are. Consideration should be given to removing the MMfA links for, among other things, reasons related to the UNDUE policy as quoted. The views I removed from the top paragraphs happened to have been "tiny-minority" views. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• On the other hand, it could be argued that campaigning against the repeal of legislation criminalizing homosexuality and aspects of homosexual behaviour, is tantamount to the same thing. Also, be careful with MMfA links; they are often just a copy from a reliable source where content can be found from the original source elsewhere. Black Kite 15:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I see your point, although they are not seeking new such legislation. Now I'm not questioning you, I'm just expressing surprise: there really are laws that criminalize homosexuality? Yes, I can see public sexuality, homosexual or not, being criminalized, and maybe other such circumstances, but does merely being a homosexual actually mean being a criminal? There are laws like that? Scary if true. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Lawrence v. Texas (for example). --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but that was 5 years ago. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some states continue to enforce anti-sodomy laws; [16] Black Kite 18:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but that page says, "Adultery, and co-habitation are also illegal and enforced sporadically and maliciously." So homosexuality itself is not being singled out simply because it is homosexuality. It seems the target is the act, not the actor. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the point. And let's not forget that Wikipedia is not the news - the past is just as relevant as the state of the law now, especially when attempts are being made (supported by the AFA) to reverse L v. Tex and to institute new anti-gay laws. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. The point was that the AFA is not seeking to criminalize homosexuals, and there is no evidence that it is. As people like them like to say, love the sinner, hate the sin. Now if it could be sourced that the AFA was opposed to criminal sexual contact with children, for example, regardless of the sexuality of the criminal, that's fine. But to say the AFA seeks to criminalize homosexuality, that needs sources as yet not provided, and that's why I removed it. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All it took was a quick google search: [17] --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're advocating for laws that criminalise homosexuality. What, in your opinion, would mean "seeking to criminalise homosexuality"? It seems to me that they meet the threshold. Orpheus (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can anyone say that the AFA doesn't want the compulsory recognition of Christmas in print advertising when they regularly encourage boycotts against businesses that don't use the word "Christmas" and arrage massive letter writing campaigns to harass the executives of businesses that don't? I can think of no better example than their feud with Kohl's last year. Their attitude is essentially, "Advertise Christmas or we will try and destroy you." How is that NOT pushing for compulsory recognition?209.169.82.93 (talk) 04:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to point out that reverting good faith contributions is generally frowned upon, but marking it as minor is highly inappropriate. LaEC I'm talking to you. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheeser1 - I may have slipped on the minor edit flag. Assume good faith -- we are working together now. As to the revert, the edit effectively undid everything we all agreed to on this page either explicitly or via edits done as they are, and it restored unsourced material, let alone original research and POV. And just look at the comment left so by 209.169.82.93 -- so full of POV and original research. So now that I have explained things further, I'll revert again, and this time I'll not click the minor edit flag. It is surprised to see you restore such an edit. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, maybe I'm reading the wrong section, but you're the only one who believes that they do not support legislation to criminalize homosexuality - which, by the way, people found sources for... --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My beliefs are irrelevant. Be that as it may, enough time has passed for me not to remember. Sorry. But even if true, that 209 IP address edit did not provide the required support. Honestly, you seem to be a very experienced editor, yet you apparently continue to support a drive by edit. I don't understand. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that's because he's looking at the content of the edit rather than worrying about who made it (which is pretty much the core principle behind AGF). I personally think the sources do support the AFA wanting to criminalise homosexuality - as I said above, they advocate for laws which make actions gay (and straight) people take for granted illegal. Orpheus (talk) 08:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who made the edit is irrelevant. What is relevant is the edit did not provide the requisite source(s), etc., among other things. Have wikiworthy sources? Then add it. I do not oppose adding material in keeping with wiki policy. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 09:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to review Wikipedia's core policies, like WP:V. This policy explains that information needs to be verifiable. Not that "all information that is not cited with a correct inline citation must be immediatley removed." We discussed the matter here on the talk page, and both reliable sources and a reasonable consensus seemed to indicate that "criminalize" (meaning "to make illegal") was clearly the correct term. Neither WP:V, nor any other policy, requires a citation or else you must revert it. It seems highly convenient that you revert it citing "see talk" (as if there were consensus or some commnent here explaining why the IP's edits were wrong), and yet now you're citing some nonexistant "it needed a source" policy. --Cheeser1 (talk) 10:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheeser1, thanks for your opinion. Orpheus had already the resolved the matter before you left this last comment of yours. Assuming good faith has not fully entering into your comments to me, even after Orpheus's resolution. Remember, we are all trying to work together to improve the page. Please keep that in mind. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V is not my opinion, it's a policy. Explaining basic policy to you doesn't violate WP:AGF - if anything, it's most consistent with AGF. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheeser1, you don't stop, do you. Your comments go beyond explaining policy and say things like, "it seems highly convenient that you revert it citing ...," "I'm sorry, maybe I'm reading the wrong section, but you're the only one who believes that ...," "reverting good faith contributions is generally frowned upon, but marking it as minor is highly inappropriate. LaEC I'm talking to you," "Grow up. It's my userspace, I am allowed to do what I want," "I don't expect a sarcastic and substantially misrepresentative quip about the RSN...," "insisting that you're right when you're wrong (and perhaps hoping to slip that in now that he point is also moot) is not appropriate...." --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, could you explain the point of copy-pasting decontextualized pieces of what I've said? I stand behind what I said, and in context none of it is out of place - I would expect that no editor on this page who's kept up has issue with that but you. How do you think that citing WP:V constitutes some sort of thing that I "don't stop"? --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your further comments. I'm choosing not to respond further as there never seems to be an end for you. So I'll end it. Done. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL!—Christopher Mann McKay^talk 01:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The AFA's boycott of Ford has been ceased due to conditions of the boycott being met as cited at [18]. I don't (yet) know enough about Wikipedia to dare attempt the update myself. Masonmouse (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an AFA press release / website. It is not a reliable source of information, and draws conclusions that the AFA are not in a neutral/reliable position to draw. They have no way of knowing if anything they mention relates to their boycott. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't understand. If they began the boycott, carried it through and ended it, wouldn't they be the most reliable source of information regarding whether or not it is still ongoing? Any other source, Ford, news sites, etc., would either be only observing their actions and declaring the boycott appears to be over or just citing the announcement from the AFA itself. If they've stated it's over, I'd say it's safe to say it's over. Or at least "suspended" in their own wording. I'm merely suggesting the article stating that the boycott is still ongoing be changed to reflect the fact that it has ended. 24.206.191.169 (talk) 07:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should have referred you to: the reliable sources guideline which supplements verifiability policy. To say simply that it is no longer active would be fine - I've done so just now - but any claims about its effectiveness or success cannot be taken from the AFA, as they are not impartial (clearly) nor reliable. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• To be honest, I doubt if Ford would shoot itself in the foot as badly as to bend to the demands of a hate group. I would suspect that the AFA has taken advantage of a shift in Ford's advertising demographic to claim a success. Black Kite 12:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good call, BlackKite, see [19]. But isn't this a case of he said she said? Perhaps Ford is taking advantage if its strategy shift due to falling sales to claim the AFA was irrelevant? It sure is a coincidence that the AFA launches a boycott and Ford sales have fallen ever since. I think something should be said as to why the boycott ended, not just be left in the air as it is. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 12:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)0[reply]

Yes, it is a case of "he said she said", which means that we should merely report the facts as we know them at the moment, i.e. the AFA has called off its boycott. We *must* have WP:RS on anything further or we would be on very shaky ground. Black Kite 13:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correlation is not causation. Orpheus (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello people. I remember the Ford fiasco. The AFA and other hategroups stirred up a lot of fuss about that one. I remember Ford ended up doing their own thing. I'll check the news again. Multivet (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The text before my edit had a claim that an AFA article insinuated something, and then sourced it using the actual article. I have removed that paragraph because it was wholly original research. It is not for us to judge whether or not something insinuated something else, rather we must report the facts as they stand. I would support the material being readded if:

• the AFA published an article explicitly stating they believed raising children as Jews would harm their development
• an independent, reliable source published a claim that the article insinuated that raising children as Jews would harm their development, in which case the proper wording would be something like "Blah blah blah reported that an AFA article insinuated that raising childrem as Jews would harm their development"

There are many other examples of anti-semitism committed by this organisation, let us not leave ourselves open to attack by allowing personal judgement to enter articles. 121.216.227.175 (talk) 04:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the primary source with a secondary source. Hopefully this clears up any objections. Orpheus (talk) 08:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's better, but I'd still prefer if you didn't present it as an absolute. Could we reword it to something like:

Media Matters claimed an article in the March 2005 issue of AFA's Journal insinuated that raising children as Jews would lead to criminal lifestyles, and that it required a conversion to Christianity in order to make them productive members of society.

121.216.227.175 (talk) 08:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it absolutely has to be reworded to state in the text who is making that claim. - Merzbow (talk) 23:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Aiden Fisher (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph reads:

In response to Hurricane Katrina, the AFA Journal published a controversial article which praised the hurricane's destruction. The article claimed that the storm was "[an] instrument of God's mercy" and "wiped out rampant sin."

I left this comment on the page (using the comment markup) and will repeat it here:

This paragraph is based upon a grossly inaccurate description of an Agape News article. I have requested a correction on Wikinews and once it is corrected there, I intend to alter and possibly even delete (since what the article reported is not the opinion of AFA) this paragraph.

67.135.49.116 (talk) 03:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying Katrina wasn't the wrath of God??? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have anything useful to add? 67.135.49.116 (talk) 05:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That depends. I'm waiting for your evidence on the matter. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My evidence on what matter? The matter of the inaccurate description of the Agape News article? 67.135.49.116 (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph was based on the canadiancontent.net article as well as wikinews. I've put the Google cache version in, which is still live for now. Orpheus (talk) 06:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, there's a correct method for dealing with dead links, and removing them is definitely not the right way to do it. See WP:DEADREF for how they should be dealt with. Orpheus (talk) 06:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both links contain basically the same information. It would be better to also include the full AFA statement on the matter (if available), rather than an isolated quote, to let the reader decide if the quote was a fair summary of their view, or whether it was taken out of context. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's the reliability of wikinews that was in question here, not what the content says. I've added the primary source as well. Orpheus (talk) 06:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding the original, which illustrates much better than a single paragraph, how ignorant those AFA people are. "God may have used the hurricane to purge wickedness from the city." Maybe they are unaware that the French Quarter, which I'm sure was high on their list of "wickedness" areas of the city, was largely spared the destruction, being on relatively high ground. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs, I think you should refactor your comment. While I agree with your feelings about the AFA, as editors we have to remain neutral. Making comments about how "ignorant" they are only gives the people who want to remove things like the Katrina section more ammunition and makes it way to easy to claim bias on our part. AniMate 07:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would second that request, particularly given the standard disclaimer at the top of every talk page: "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." Orpheus (talk) 07:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(comment1 + comment2) * comment3 = comment1 * comment3 + comment2 * comment3. OK, it's refactored. The reason I asked for the full article is to give the reader the opportunity to judge the full story, and not have it only filtered and somewhat editorialized, as the two previous citations do. That way the readers can decide whether the AFA characters are wise or stupid. Many readers might agree with them (my grandmother, for one). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're not writing this article so people can judge them ignorant or not. We're just presenting the facts in the most neutral way possible. You should really strike through or better yet remove the "ignorant" part of the comment. After all, if showing ignorance is our goal as editors then other editors can easily come along and point to bias here as an excuse to attack articles dealing with groups on the other end of the political spectrum. AniMate 08:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You lack a sense of humor. Read on. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just have to mention how this paragraph as it was (and probably will be again) exposes a serious weakness in Wikipedia's methods. If you read the actual Agape Press article, it's obvious that they are reporting the comments of two clergymen and are not stating the beliefs of the AFA. Yet it was recorded in this article as if it was absolute fact that these were the beliefs of the AFA because someone somewhere at sometime misportrayed the article as stating the AFA's beliefs and "got it into print." Apparently, overzealous editors can have Wikipedia articles say anything about anyone (or any thing) no matter how inaccurate or even blatantly false as long as its printed somewhere. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've read all three articles. This is a really big stretch. It doesn't look to me like the AFA is advocating Shanks' position, nor was the Agape Press the only news outlet to publish something about an evangelical praising the destruction of Katrina. Pat Robertson said some really nasty things after the hurricane (it was reribution for homosexuality and abortion if I recall), but we can't claim that the LA Times shares this view just for reporting this, can we? I'd argue that these are exceptional claims and that they're given undue weight.AniMate 21:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you would be right. The short citations are editorial positions. The full article lays it out so everyone can see the context. In fact, two opposite views are expressed in the full article, one about the mercy of God and one about the wrath of God. In short, the two stories contradict each other. They do a good job of summarizing the different ways that believers might interpret the hand of God. As such, it's a fair and balanced article. The statement in the wikipedia article, "Some viewed this article as showing the AFA praising the hurricane's destruction," is an editor's extrapolation. In fact, the self-contradictions within the full article reveal no editorial position of the AFA at all. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and removed it. The Agape News article didn't back up the claims we were making, and I'm pretty sure the "some" in "Some viewed this article..." refers to whoever added that into the article. AniMate 04:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original comment was posted just days after Katrina, in September of 2005, and was even more misleading than the version you deleted. [20] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's bad. Hopefully, this isn't reverted... or if it is, hopefully, someone can up with better citations than the ones that were there. AniMate 05:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even more disturbing is that the user that posted that is an admin. However, that was 2 1/2 years ago, so he might be a better editor now. Feel free to ask him about it. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This section does not fit under the "Activism" header. This would be better suited under "Criticism and controversy." 67.135.49.116 (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To editors currently engaging in mutually assured reversion, please note that two things have happened in this article recently. There was a content dispute (we'll call this the bathwater) and there was editorial work - reorganisation, reference consolidation and so forth. Let's call that one the baby. Reverting to a version before all of this is somewhat unhelpful.

On the matter of the content dispute, I haven't read the newly added reference, but I have thrown that particular fetus out with the rancid bathwater that was put back in, to thoroughly mangle the metaphor. Please add it back, in the appropriate place, with the appropriate text that you think should be restored - but do so as an edit to the current version, not a reversion.

Cheers, Orpheus (talk) 07:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the added reference. What I had a problem with, which seems to have now been corrected (thank you), is the blanket reverting based solely on personal prejudice against me. (See Oddnature's ridiculous edit summary.) The edits had stood for a while after some conflict of opinion and no one had a problem with me moving the "Anti-Semitism" section to a more appropriate spot until two editors with chips on their shoulders came along. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, User:67.135.49.116 a.k.a. User:Jinxmchue, others seem to have had problems with your behaviour and with your edit summaries in particular,[21] so the best way to avoid problems is to behave in an open and collegiate way. Seeya, dave souza, talk 08:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My edit summaries aren't any different from those of some others, so what's the problem? And I was very open and collegiate. I boldly followed BLP in removing blatantly false material and provided proof that it was false. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFA just announced their boycott of the Golden Arches today. AFA calls for McDonald's boycott (from OneNewsNow* WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*_{Will look for a site not connected with group later}

The given sources don't suggest that AFA is for making homosexuality a crime. I happened to find complaints about this statement over at Conservapedia[22] so I decided to come here to take a look. I deleted this possibly false claim, and it was reverted within four hours. The SOVO cite merely describes AFA as "anti-gay", and I can't find the given Washington Times article. I guess it was within the context of the Lawrence v. Texas case, but I saw nothing in the SOVO article that said something like AFA wanted to uphold the now-defunct Texas sodomy law.--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this issue is dealt with a bit higher up on the talk page. As indicated by their response to Lawrence v. Texas, they DO want homosexual sex to be a crime. Most of their response has focused on a bunch of legal claptrap that is a mishmash of militia and mid 90's Patriot nonsense, arguing that the Supreme Court had no legal standing to overturn a criminal law of a state (oh really...I was unaware the Supreme Court had not established its position as the final say on things some 200 years ago in Marbury v. Madison, a fact illuminated by it being engraved on the wall of the Supreme Court's building). The argument, used by some above, that they are not advocating such legislation does not indicate that they don't want homosexual sex made illegal again, but rather they realize any attempt to legislate ,barring a Constitutional amendment, would simply get struck down again. Even the AFA is pragmatic; they know that it simply will not happen. SiberioS (talk) 08:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, the AFA campaigns in favour of laws which criminalise gay sex, and campaign against the repeal of those laws. The sources show that pretty clearly. Incidentally, reverting a change like that to bring it to the talk page is entirely appropriate - see WP:BRD for more information. Orpheus (talk) 09:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reference showing this, but it really needs cleaning up - haven't the time right now but I'll get onto it soonish if noone else does. Orpheus (talk) 09:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your clarification. However, I have another question: How about reword "homosexuality" to "homosexual acts" because we don't want to give the impression that AFA wants Elton John to go to Supermax. I mean, I'm guessing that AFA's position in Lawrence v. Texas is more in line against stuff like what Bill Clinton did to Monica Lewinsky. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be like saying that an organisation didn't want Christianity outlawed, but did want prayer and other Christian acts to be a crime. Drawing a distinction between homosexual acts and homosexuality like that doesn't really fit with neutrality. Orpheus (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Sorry for my misunderstanding. In the meantime, I can now accept that AFA wants homosexuality to be a crime, but I doubt if the SOVO and Washington Times citations support that claim. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're also into changing the names of people with homosexually sounding names. See one example here. - Soulkeeper (talk) 07:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was pretty funny. I wonder how Tyson Homosexual will be faring now that he's fit for the olympics. Orpheus (talk) 08:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "liebeck" :
  • Liebeck, Laura. "[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3092/is_n9_v29/ai_9076835 K mart, Waldenbooks to face AFA pickets]". ''Discount Store News''. [[1990-05-07]] Retrieved on [[2007-07-15]].
  • Cohen, Roger. "[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CEEDD1431F930A15757C0A966958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print With Boycott and Ads, A Battle Over Selling]". ''[[The New York Times]]''. [[1990-04-23]]. Retrieved on [[2007-09-29]].

DumZiBoT (talk) 08:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's some pretty hefty consensus over too many megabytes of talk page archives regarding categories in this article. Please discuss before removing them. Orpheus (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, consensus can change, after all. I, for one, think it's pretty outrageous that these categories have remained for so long; they're clearly inappropriate. Surely the standard for inclusion in one of these pejorative categories is higher than this. HiDrNick! 15:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was brow beaten into leaving in categories that are clearly points of view -- definitely not appropriate for categories. Since someone else noticed the NPOV again, telling people to look back in the archives at the old brow beating is not enough. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest going back through the archives to look at the arguments that were made at the time, to save a ridiculous amount of copy and pasting. The summary is that homophobia is not automatically a pejorative (see the CfD). It is a category which groups together all articles that relate to homophobia. The AFA have been accused of homophobia and they have defined their own version of the term which does not include them as homophobes. Because of that, they should be in the homophobia category. The other categories have a similar rationale. Basically, the category is not "Homophobic organisation", which would be a POV label and rightly deleted in no time. It's a neutral and concise grouping of articles from all sides of a topic. Orpheus (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I notice that "Hate groups" snuck in there at some point, which is a POV label. I've removed it. Orpheus (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with "It is a category which groups together all articles that relate to homophobia." A look at the other pages categorized as "homophobia" shows they are all organizations that are vehemently opposed for their perceived homophobic stances, and indeed some might actually have those stances, but the grouping in general is only from one side of the political fence, thus is biased/POV. If the category was actually intended to honestly and impartially present information on homophobia, the list would also contain organizations that claim to oppose claimed homophobia. Based on this total and absolutely lack of balance, the entire category looks POV driven. I will/have raise this issue there.

I disagree with "Basically, the category is not 'Homophobic organisation', which would be a POV label and rightly deleted in no time. It's a neutral and concise grouping of articles from all sides of a topic." That comment on labeling appears to me to be a word game. And the comment on a "grouping of articles from all sides of a topic" is patently false.

Based on these comments, the "homophobia" category should be removed forthwith. Only out of respect for Orpheus will I not do that right now. But don't let me stand in the way of anyone else. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The homophobia category looks fine to me. I think a "hate group" category would be incendiary and POV; the current understanding of homophobia is more nuanced than that. This category should indeed be equally applied to groups that exist to counter perceived homophobia, in the same way that the Anti-Defamation League page is categorised under Antisemitism. I strongly support keeping the category. Cheers, GeneralBelly (talk) 23:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but you agree it is currently unbalanced since you suggest adding the ADL, for example. What about giving it a better title? Instead of homophobia, how about homosexuality politics or the like? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, please don't put words in my mouth. I think the category is fine, but I think the category tag should be added to articles related to combating homophobia too. It's isn't about gay politics, it's about homophobia and those considered to be associated with it in whatever form or fashion, positive or negative. GeneralBelly (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you confused my general statement with putting words in your mouth. What you said, however, seemes to me to be substantially similar to what I said, namely, "the list would also contain organizations that claim to oppose claimed homophobia." Oppose claimed homophobia, combating homophobia, same thing.

Homophobia is POV though. To me, homophobia means fear of homosexuals. Phobia meaning fear. Many if not most of these groups do not fear homosexuals. Indeed they openly oppose what they perceive to be the homosexual agenda. Fear is not the issue. If they were fearful, they when not want to be noticed. It's something else. If politics of homosexuality is not adequate, how about, oh, I don't know. The essence is not that they oppose homosexuals. Rather, the essence is that they oppose what they deem to be a certain agenda advanced by some people who include certain homosexuals. For example, MassResistance opposes public schools teaching homosexuality as a normal lifestyle to kindergartners without parental involvement as a result of a perceived agenda in Massachusetts to do just that, that started with the gay marriage movement. I would not call that homophobia. I would if they said people should fear homosexuals for one reason or another. But that is not what they are saying. And calling them homophobics is just a way of denigrating them merely through the use of name calling, essentially. It's POV. It's people trying to change the language to help them win their argument--an everyday occurrence but not appropriate for Wikipedia. I just can't put my finger on what to call it without using a POV term like homophobic. Calling them family centric, for example, would be equally POV, only from the other side. So we cannot say family centric or familyphilic. Can you think of anything? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you are saying, but the current mainstream meaning of homophobia is broader than the original definition of "fear of homosexuality"; the definition you are using would be more applicable to a clinical psychological condition. Whether or not you (or I, or anyone else) personally feel it is a fair word to use, the fact remains that it is widely accepted that it applies to conservative organisations such as AFA, FRC, FOTF, as well as the pro-gay HRC, GLADD etc. People perceive them to be involved in homophobia, so the category is appropriate. Simply being included in the category does not make them homophobic or pro-gay; it is descriptive rather than a judgment. GeneralBelly (talk) 00:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so why isn't HRC, GLADD, SPLC, ADL, etc., assigned to the homophobia category? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GLAAD should be (and, now, are) in the category - they're very active in the homophobia debate. Your comment about homophobia meaning fear of homosexuals has been rejected by the wider Wikipedia community, based on the CfD discussion and previous talk page discussions. The consensus is that it's not a pejorative category. Orpheus (talk) 06:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For comparison, look at Category:Antisemitism. Articles include Uriah P. Levy, Solomon Lozovsky, Scholars for Peace in the Middle East. It's got the Anti-Defamation League as a whole subcategory. The category page has a big banner at the top saying "This category contains articles that discuss or refer to the topic of antisemitism. It does not imply that the subjects of any biographical articles are antisemitic." It's the same distinction - antisemitism, neutral term. Antisemitic, pejorative term. Homophobia, neutral term. Homophobic, pejorative term. Orpheus (talk) 06:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic, Orpheus, I'm happy to see balance is finally being added to the category. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Undent)Coming here from the NPOV noticeboard, and even though it looks like this discussion is over for now, I just wanted to add that I support the inclusion in the homophobia category, especially since there is a cited section in the article itself about the AFA's efforts to redefine the common use of the term "homophobia." I agree with earlier editors, though, that the category itself should include all articles relating to homophobia in some way, and not just articles about groups some would consider to be homophobic. Quietmarc (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just point out that "homophobia" does not just mean a fear of homosexuals. Various well-respected and widely known dictionaries (including Merriam-Webster, Random House, and Princeton University's Wordnet) define it as "fear, hatred, antipathy, or discrimination against homosexuals". I'm sure that some of the 'phobes out there (the AFA included) will argue against this definition, but they can't be allowed to just decide what a word means for themselves just because they don't like it. Personally, I would label the AFA as a hate group because of their unquestionable determination to marginalise a whole section of society (what else could you call it?) but the homophobia category doesn't mean the same thing and merely pertains to the subject of homophobia without making any moral judgements about it. 79.74.96.91 (talk) 05:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be a section documenting the AFA's beliefs in addition to the one documenting its activism. The "Criticism/controversy" section distorts the AFA's beliefs, and Conservapedia has already noted this. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay by me. Go ahead and put in what you believe would improve the product. So long as it fits wiki policy such as supported by WP:RS, then you're golden. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:Controversy, only independent scholarly work and mainstream media should be used as sources. The controversy section is dominated by a biased group who is neither, and should be removed. This isn't a section for an opinion free-for-all. Ejnogarb (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Self sourcing is allowed if the self-source is notable and Equality Mississippi is notable. But based on your recent wholesale deletion of content from this article, I don't think we're going to come to any kind of agreement on this issue so I'll leave it for someone else to deal with. Good day. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 18:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the guideline for articles like this: independent scholar of mainstream media. Ejnogarb (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Along the same lines, I deleted the sentence which says Scott Lively's group was implicated in hate crimes against gays in California, because there was no mention of California or any hate crimes perpetrated by his group in the SPLCenter source. The SPLCenter seems to be a dubious, biased source which needs to be moderated in this article. Ejnogarb (talk) 02:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you can't read. In the SPLCenter source, it specifically says, a 26-year-old gay Indian man who was beaten to death by Russian-speaking gay bashers in a park near Sacramento, Calif.. Last I checked, Sacramento was still in California and Calif. was sometimes used as shorthand for California. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 03:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, remember to keep things civil. Second, the article never implicates Lively, but a group of unknown Russians. It needs to be removed since the sentence is false. Last, as stated above, on an article such as this, the guideline for sources is this: independent scholar of mainstream media. SPLCenter is neither. Ejnogarb (talk) 03:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of "Watchmen on the Walls, which has been implicated in violence against gays in California" is supported by its source? Can you specifically say how they have acted out in violence against gays in California? Ejnogarb (talk) 03:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source shows the connection between him, his organization, his discussion of the violence at a conference.. it ties it all in together. It's so painfully obvious, except I guess to someone who is hell-bent on whitewashing anything negative against the American Family Association. Additionally, you should take note of the banner at the very top of this very page that says Please discuss substantial changes here before making them. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 03:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The connection you see is your POV, and does not belong in the article. Please provide a quotation from the source that supports that Watchmen on the Walls or Lively "has been implicated in violence against gays in California." Again, please be civil and refrain from making personal attacks per Wikipedia:PERSONAL ATTACK. Ejnogarb (talk) 04:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I get the following tidbits from the source:

• Scott Lively co-founded the Watchmen group.
• A gay man was beaten to death in San Francisco by Russian-speaking men.
• At a Watchmen conference, Lively described the event from an anti-gay perspective.
• He opined that the goal of the investigation was to "silence everyone who speaks against homosexuality".

I've reworded the passage accordingly. Orpheus (talk) 04:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While IMO, Allstar's comment about the connection (and tying it together) is obvious, it has be specifically so stated by a reliable source. We can't make the connection, otherwise it's WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Scott Lively was clearly careful to not directly support violence against gays in his taped comments, although a reasonable person could infer he approved. But that's not RS, and is therefore inadmissible. It's also interesting that the accounts of the gay beating event in SF differ so drastically. I viewed the video also and I agree with Ejnogarb and Orpheus that the "involvement" statement is not directly supported by the source, and endorse the current version by Orpheus. If another RS supporting the connection and deeper involvement can be found, then reinstate per that source. Several other points: (1) Self sourcing is allowed under conditions as described by Allstar (2) Allstar is correct as to location relative to the SPLC; it's CA (3) SPLC is acceptable as a reliable source (4) Allstar is also correct we should Please discuss substantial changes here before making them. (5) Edit warring does not help anyone; the involved editors, the article, WP, and most importantly, our readers. — Becksguy (talk) 09:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]