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 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pornography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics 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.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

These problems exist with the links in the criticism section:

14 Washington Times is not criticizing AFA, they’re reporting that Cyber Patrol blocked them

65 leads to homepage, not article

66 deadlink

67 “according to a recent report from the Southern Poverty Law Center,” not Southern Voice, needs to be removed as source

68 makes no reference to AFA

69 deadlink, but maybe just needs to be redirected

70 same as 69

71 CNET is not criticizing AFA, they’re reporting that Cyber Patrol blocked them

72 Edmunds doesn’t call AFA anti-gay, but ineffectual

73 Possibly a misdirect, makes no reference to AFA

74 deadlink

75 deadlink

76 deadlink

77 ACLU never says “anti-gay”

79 deadlink

80 deadlink

81 deadlink

88 all quotes (except last) are unsourced

101 unreliable source

102 makes no reference to AFA, and never says, “be more negative to Islam”

103 is AFA of PA the same as AFA of Mississippi?

Primary suggestions: (1) Remove Washington Times, Southern Voice, CNET as critics of AFA since they are only sources, not originators, of statements. Furthermore, Edmunds never calls AFA anti-gay, and should likewise be removed as a source (or changed to reflect what is actually said in article). (2) Repair the deadlinks if possible, but delete them if impossible. If a majority remains, the section should be tagged with a deadlink template. (3) There are several sources that make no reference to the AFA (links 68, 73, 102) and should be deleted.

I may have made some mistakes in the above list, and would appreciate any helpful corrections. However, I believe that each of the above links needs attention.  EJNOGARB  17:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm assuming in your latest edit war today, this is where you keep talking about in your edit summary when you reference "see talk page" since I see no other discussion started todayt in regards to the content you are removing? If so, we don't delete sourced content just because links are dead or have moved. We find improve them by finding new ones. Have you attempted to even do this? Find sources to replace any dead or moved ones? Additionally, "discuss BEFORE making changes" is so painfully clear. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 01:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if you pay closer attention to the talk page and actual edits made. I have not removed any dead links, as you said. Instead, I removed three sources because they were misrepresented in the article. The article text formerly stated that Southern Voice, CNET, and Edmunds stated that AFA was anti-gay, but this is not true; they all reported that either Cyber Patrol or SPLC said that AFA was anti-gay. They may be used as citations, but it is unfair to say that they accused AFA of being anti-gay as they themselves merely reported an event. The only one not using the talk page and engaging in edit wars is you. The source problems above have been on the talk page for a whole week.  EJNOGARB  01:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I shouldn't have only labeled the source problems by their citation numbers, since now they are listed out of order. Today I'm affixing dead link tags to bad sources.  EJNOGARB  21:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up Criticism: removed material unsourced, material sourced by dead links, obvious POV, trivial assertions, poor sources.Lionelt (talk) 21:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk archives. Much of the material you removed has a consensus to stay. We also don't delete sourced content because of dead links. If you want to do something constructive, rather than wiping out the content which only appears to be censoring/whitewashing, go find new sources and use Archive.org. All of the sources are reliable third party. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 21:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read the current Talk page. There's a growing consensus amongst the editors here to delete the material that is unsourced. In particular the Criticism material since it has become POV and unbalanced, thus the WP:CONTROVERSY. In fact, the top of this page says consider "removing uncited/unciteable information." After a month the uncited material should be deleted. Do we agree? Lionelt (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced content should be removed. Sourced, even if the source link is dead, should not be - just like we don't delete images from WP or Commons that were once sourced and free but have since been removed from their sources.. license and reliable source can't be revoked. The criticism section also has been under great scrutiny in the past and the consensus was to leave it as it is excepting removal of unsourced content, that it isn't POV. It may be unbalanced but feel free to add sourced content that balances it. You literally wiped out the whole section. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 04:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone Watch-ing this article read it lately? "Organizations, such as Human Rights Campaign, National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, GLAAD, People for the American Way, The Advocate, CNET, Edmunds AfterEllen.com, 365 gay, and QSanAntonio.com have labeled the AFA as an 'anti-gay' organization. The Washington Times has stated the AFA's web site is 'anti-gay.'?" How can this possibly improve the article? It's like saying "The NAACP has stated that the KKK discriminates against Black people." Did you know the KKK article is 3x the size of this one, yet the Controversy section 1/3 the size of this one? Ejnogarb is right: criticism in the Obama article is balanced and NPOV. Of course there are 100,000 are watch-ing the article. This article should be renamed "Persecution of the Gay Community by the Anti-gay, Homophobic AFA." It's sad. Lionelt (talk) 05:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the organisations that would obviously have that view of the AFA (it seems redundant and clunky to list them) and fixed the links of the more important ones. Otherwise, I don't see a problem with listing sourced criticism of the AFA. And Allstarecho is right - don't remove material purely because links are dead, use archive.org to fix them - I just fixed (75) and (76) like that in a few minutes. Black Kite 11:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last half of the "Homosexuality" subsection, which deals with Equality Mississippi, is sourced to press releases from Equality Mississippi itself. Per WP:SELFPUB, self-published sources should not be used to make claims about third parties (in this case AFA). A similar situation exists in the Equality Mississippi article and was discussed here. Note that Allstarecho has self-identified as the founder of Equality Mississippi. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That would be a problem in the Equality Mississippi article, agreed, but here it is only being used to source the fact that EM has criticised the AFA (in which case primary sources are not a problem - indeed, they are preferred). The actual issue here would be whether there is too much in this section about EM per WP:UNDUE, not the self-publishing aspect. Black Kite 11:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight aside, there are claims made about the AFA, not about Equality Mississippi, which are based solely on Equality Mississippi sources:

• "...the AFA sent out emails and letters calling for the arrest of openly gay Arizona Republican United States House of Representatives member Jim Kolbe. The AFA said that because Kolbe is gay, he was violating an Arizona law that banned sodomy."
• "...the AFA for their boycott against the Girl Scouts of America (GSA). The AFA boycott of the GSA was because the GSA does not ban lesbian scouts or lesbian scout leaders."
• "...the AFA for the use of copyrighted images on the AFA web site in its boycott against Kraft Foods for being a sponsor of the 2006 Gay Games in Chicago. The photographs, which were used without permission, were owned by and retrieved from ChrisGeary.com."

These claims are otherwise unsupported. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright claims are very supported per the cited link, http://www.afa.net/activism/gaygamesproof.html which contains the images that are watermarked with the ChrisGeary.com attribution. The images are still there on AFA's to be seen as proof and support. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 15:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • I've sourced and expanded the first of those three sections. Struggling to find sources for the second one - though it is clear the AFA criticised the GSA, sources for a "boycott" are difficult to find. The third section is trivial even if it was sourced ("AFA breaks copyright law"? Who cares?) and I have removed it. Black Kite 14:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just point out that I'm not so sure there's a claim of undue weight when it comes to Equality Mississippi as both organizations are/were headquartered in Mississippi. It only seems proper that Equality Mississippi would be the main "other side" to the AFA. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 15:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, but the section just read as a laundry list of things that EM had criticised the AFA for. I'm really not sure about the Kraft Foods section - there's a difference between "immoral" and "illegal" - would we mention it if Donald Wildmon got a speeding ticket? - and of course there's also the issue that an allegation of illegal behaviour probably needs to be much better sourced. I'm not too bothered if it stays, though. Black Kite 15:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it speaks volumes as to the lengths they go to in their opposition of homosexuality and businesses that support equality - something a speeding ticket would have no relevance for. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 15:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of illegal activities need to be backed up by something more substantial than a press release from a group with an opposing viewpoint and a link which invites original research. I believe this needs to go unless sourced. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You removed this section saying it wasn't properly sourced:

In August 2001, Equality Mississippi voiced opposition towards the AFA for their boycott against the Girl Scouts of America (GSA). The AFA boycott of the GSA was because the GSA does not ban lesbian scouts or lesbian scout leaders. Equality Mississippi felt that the AFA's actions were in response to gay rights organizations across the country calling for a ban against the Boy Scouts of America for its still-ongoing ban on gay scouts and gay scout leaders.^[1]

The source, as seen in the reference section just below, isn't proper? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 15:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I can find no other source claiming that the AFA actually boycotted the GSA. If you can find one, then that's great. Black Kite 15:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was essentially a boycott since they started bashing the Girl Scouts and promoting American Heritage Girls as the Christian alternative, but I guess it could be reworded and add this source as well. And this, http://www.afa.net/activism/aa082001.asp is what started it all and is the reference for the Equality Mississippi press release. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 15:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the big banner at the top of this page says, Please discuss substantial changes here before making them. It's one thing to clean up an article and an entirely different thing to whitewash/censor pieces of it. Claiming to move things around when in reality you're removing things totally, isn't productive either. I suggest getting a consensus before making these changes that consensus has already established to be here in the first place. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 08:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with your characterization of "whitewashing." In any event, this article suffers from POV mainly in the Criticism section. This section is littered with redundant, obvious material. Some of it isn't even criticism. I made 5 edits which went a long way in getting rid of the tag. What are your specific issues with my edits?

1. No criticism here - it's what AFA does - moved to Political Activism
2. Generalities don't belong in WP, especially in a Criticism section, this is WP:OR
3. This is the view of the PA Head and should go in Personnel
4. Wilmon's views should go in Personnel with other related material
5. redundant - article already states in Homosexuality above section : "We oppose the efforts of the gay movement" LGBT org list WP:UNDUE Lionelt (talk) 08:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your first edit (#5): I rather agree that it's a bit excessive considering the organisation is unabashedly anti-gay. What is that section trying to prove, exactly, that there are lots of opponents? Perhaps the lead-in to that paragraph could be converted to something like "Criticised by a number of organisations for their anti-gay stance(ref)(ref)(ref)(ref)..." That way the laundry-list look is gone but the references can stay. Regarding the "personnel" edits: I actually see your reasoning for the moves, however the viewpoints of Wildmon, as founder, are harder to dismiss as merely "personnel" issues like the PA Head. Does the organisation stand back from his controversial viewpoints, or is he treated as a source of wisdom beyond simply having founded it? This I think requires more discussion. Regarding Textbook and Rajan Zed segments: rightly moved out of criticism (responses to these things would be in criticism, but this is descriptive). - BalthCat (talk) 11:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we agree on "Criticized by a number of organizations for their anti-gay stance(ref)(ref)(ref)(ref)..."? Lionelt (talk) 03:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Also, the PA head issue was discussed not that long ago on this very page and the consensus was that AFA PA is still owned/operated by AFA parent. Anything it does, reflects on AFA in general and it's obvious they do what the parent tells them to do. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 05:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Scott Lively incident in in the Personnel section. Shouldn't the PA Head incident appear there as well? Lionelt (talk) 11:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing this here because I have only been on WP for a few months and am unsure of the policy and procedure in this situation. I take offense at Allstarecho for accusing me of whitewashing or censoring this article. He is completely ignoring Good Faith and I find it very uncivil. Lionelt (talk) 08:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There are policies in place that help when some one is persistently a problem with their incivility, negativity or bias, but it doesn't appear to me that we're at that point. I personally think that you've done exactly the right thing for this "level" of problem, in that you've stated your case reasonably: you feel the accusations are unjustified and that you are not being treated appropriately. Depending on the situation (what you think might work) you might take this to the user's talk page instead of the article's talk page, or to the talk page of of someone who might give you additional perspective (vs. "ganging up"). You could also look over the official the dispute resolution page for ideas, including what to do if the situation gets out of hand. Hopefully that won't be necessary today though. (BalthCat (talk) 11:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
• I reviewed your five edits one at a time, and unless I'm missing something, the only information removed was NOT removed in one of the three edits for which the edit summary implies or declares you are just moving content. In other words it appears you did exactly as the summaries claim, without misrepresentation. (Regardless of whether they are good or bad moves.) I suspect that Allstarecho saw multiple edits to a controversial article, went to the history, and checked to see the total of your five edits, rather than one at a time. This would show all of the changes (including the removing of content) but only the last edit summary (which only says you moved things). This could have lead Allstarecho to make a mistake. Sleepy editing maybe? :) (BalthCat (talk) 11:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
• Here comes my main suggestion: As a form of reverse good faith try to imagine what mistake or misconception might have lead the other person to accuse you of something. Avoid letting their mistake make you adversarial; avoid escalating. (Especially in controversial or emotionally charged articles where editors may make poor assumptions about the intentions, biases or qualifications of other editors.) (BalthCat (talk) 11:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
• Changes to controversial articles should be made carefully. If you believe that the edit is justified and are going to be WP:BOLD anyway, then I suggest explaining yourself on the talk page just before you make the edit. This shows good faith and, should someone disagree (believing the change requires consensus), provides a starting point for the discussion. I also suggest you practically assume all changes to controversial articles will be reverted so you aren't surprised. :P (BalthCat (talk) 11:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
• I think the way you did your edits (broken into smaller, specific edits) may be the best way to edit certain articles. This may not be something everyone agrees with, since it makes the edit history and recent changes log longer. At least in the case of controversial articles it might be preferrable because each step has an edit summary, and can be evaluated and kept (or reverted) independantly of one another. (BalthCat (talk) 11:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Ugh, so it appears I have brevity issues. - BalthCat (talk) 11:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Lively is a living person and the source of the following text is a blog on SPLC. In addition, SPLC appears to be self-published website. It's been removed per WP:GRAPEVINE. This deletion is not subject to the 3-revert rule.

In August 2007, Lively described the investigation into the murder of a gay man in Sacramento, California as an attempt to "silence everyone who speaks against homosexuality". ^[1]

Lionelt (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allstarecho, you reverted my deletion of material regarding Scott Lively because you claim the article posted by Sanchez to SPLC is Lively's own words. That is true. However, "described the investigation into the murder of a gay man" are not Lively's words, but an editor's words, and are an speculative or even erroneous conclusion. His own words are "And all the powers in Sacramento have been accusing all of the Russian community of being murderers. And the goal is to silence everyone who speaks against homosexuality." It can be argued that Lively is bemoaning the blanket accusation by "all of the powers" against "all of the Russian community" and not the FBI investigation. Because this material is (1) about a living person (2) a conjectural interpretation WP:OR and (3) SPLC is self-published, I am removing the material as a good faith editor WP:GRAPEVINE. I'm sure we can work together to reword the text so that it meets WP:GRAPEVINE. Lionelt (talk) 01:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So why didn't you reword it instead of totally removing it? Also calling SPLC self-published isn't what "avoid self-published" is about. If the material was being used in the article about SPLC, then yes, it would be self-publised - content in a Wikipedia article about SPLC being sourced to SPLC.. that's self-published. Using SPLC as a source in another article not about them, isn't "avoid self-published". By your logic, every single source being used on Wikipedia would be "self-published" - if I place a CNN source into this very article, would you call it "self-published"?. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 04:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]