Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:41, 25 July 2007

This non-existent page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Mississippi This page 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 page is supported by WikiProject Mississippi.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Archives

Archive 1

Request for comment

I have posted a request for comment to the Religion and philosophy watch list. Citadel18080 17:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Third party editors: The dispute in question has been debated in Archive 1: Sections 12 ("Systematic Bias") and 14 ("Possible Conpromise on Category Debate"). Citadel18080 19:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Some of the dispute has spilled over onto User talk:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling#AFA and User talk:Christopher Mann McKay#AFA.

The dispute is over whether the AFA should be categorized under Category:Censorship, Category:Discrimination, and Category:Homophobia.

Summary of argument in opposition of removal of categories

Sources in support of Category:Homophobia, Category:Discrimination:

"Homophobia – irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals"

"Discrimination – 3a: the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b: prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment"

Examples of the AFA in favor of discrimination against homosexuals.

• AFA is opposed to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act
• AFA is opposed to homosexuals having the same rights as heterosexuals, such as:
  • The right to marriage or marriage like benefits.
  • The right to adopt childeren
• "Fundamentalists such as the Rev. Donald Wildmon and his American Family Association are seen as homophobic"
• Quote from the AFA "We want to outlaw public homosexuality"
• Quote from the AFA "Indifference or neutrality toward the homosexual rights movement will result in society's destruction by allowing civil order to be redefined and by plummeting ourselves, our children, and grandchildren into an age of godlessness."
• According to the San Francisco government, the AFA sponsored "Truth in Love" ads "promote an agenda which denies basic equal rights for gays and lesbians" (AFA v SF)

Sources in support of Category:Censorship:

"Censorship – 1a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring"

"Censoring – to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable"

While the AFA does not directly censor, they support censorship via boycotts.

Examples of the AFA supporting censorship:

• Support of the Communications Decency Act, which has been classified as censorship.
• Support of banning nudity from being developed at photograph development stores, such as Walgreen’s
• Blockbuster Video decided not to stock films that carried the recently introduced NC-17 rating after pressure from the AFA.
• 7-Eleven stopped selling selling Playboy and Penthouse magazines after a two year boycott by the AFA
• Support of censorship of public libraries in Michigan.
• "The Rev. Donald Wildmon's American Family Association seeks to censor popular culture."
• "American Family Association Claims Success in Censoring Britney Spears Appearance on 'Will & Grace'"
• "The American Family Association has taken such an active role in trying to censor the Internet"
• "Waldenbooks mounted a public relations campaign to fight the censorship efforts by American Family"

Having these categories are not in violation any policy; however, some editors have claimed using these categories is synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, which is completly false.

Proponents of removing Category:Censorship cite the AFA's web site, which the AFA claims they are not in favor of censorship because they state "censorship, by definition is government imposed." However, censorship has multiple meanings and does not exclusively mean government imposed, so citing how the AFA believes they are not in favor in censorship by the government has nothing to do the AFA inclusion to Category:Censorship, as this category does not exclusively refer to censorship as government imposed.

Proponents of removing Category:Homophobia cite the term "homophobia" is pejorative; however, these concerns should be addressed at WP:CfD, as one can not delete any category they wish for the sole reason they think it is pejorative without consensus from CfD. Homophobia was nominated for CfD; however, the result was an overwhelming keep (CfD log). —Christopher Mann McKay 23:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Summary of argument in favor of category removal

Much of this debate has revolved around the deduction that the AFA belongs in Category:Discrimination, Category:Censorship, and Category:Homophobia because its actions and activist efforts match the definitions of said actions in the dictionary. I maintain the position that doing so is a direct violation of WP:SYN because the dictionary, while being a reliable and verifiable source, is irrelevant to this discussion because it does not mention the AFA directly. For any Misplaced Pages editor to conclude that the AFA advocates or practices any of the above on his/her own is most definitely a synthesis of published material and original research. Please read the example Misplaced Pages provides about the Chicago Manual of Style and notice the following parallels:

• Both the dictionary (one opposing editor has continually quoted from the American Heritage Dictionary) and the Chicago Manual of Style are widely-read and accepted works in their fields of study, having been in publication for an extended period of time (AHD: almost 40 years and CMoS: 101 years).
• Both cite a source that does not specifically comment on the dispute (plagiarism and the AFA, respectively).

While there are many sources (mostly news articles) that do describe the AFA as advocating discrimination, censorship, and homophobia, none of these sources is the AFA itself, and in fact, the AFA states on their website, “AFA does not support "censorship." Censorship, by definition is government imposed.” There is a criticism section in this article where these sources can be listed, but in no way do they constitute factual evidence that the AFA does advocate any of these things or belong in any of these categories. WP:CAT, Guideline 8 clearly states, “Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. A list might be a better option.” Self-evident means, “evident without proof or explanation,” and, given the extensiveness of this discussion, there is little doubt that including the AFA in these categories is controversial. One editor who favors the inclusion of the AFA in said categories has stated repeatedly that guidelines can and are ignored because they are not policy. I feel that these guidelines should be followed whenever possible. As I have said before on this talk page, we are not arguing about something obvious, like putting the article on the Earth into the Planets category.

I have offered two compromises to the opposing editors. I recommended that the AFA be placed on lists instead of categories, as the guideline recommends. The lists would be titled "List of organizations believed to be advocating..." or something similar. This was rejected by said editors. I also recommended that, as a temporary solution, the categories be removed and criticism be placed in the approriate section of the article. This, too, was rejected.

To be clear, I am not advocating a complete removal of the material in question. I only ask that accusations of Discrimination, Censorship, and Homophobia advocacy be put into the proper context. That is what the “criticism” section of the article and/or lists are for. Categories, by definition, cannot provide that context. Citadel18080 21:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me add to this summary. The cats suggested are false. They are supported by POV and/or by OR. The AFA is not homophobic, discriminatory, or censorious any more than any individual parent is who does not want his child to view pornography. Editors have been willing to look at evidence that the AFA is actually characterized by these terms but no substantial evidence has been presented despite repeated requests.

Further, the proponents of adding the cats have engaged in threatening and carrying out edit warring, personal attacks on a regular basis, and have even admitting being personally opposed to the subject of the page they are editting. Also, almost all material they do add is from seriously biased sources who, like them, can't stand the AFA. Further, when such material is added, they have added POV to make the page say something even the biased sources didn't say. And it is disheartening to hear them laugh at the need to follow wiki policy and do whatever they want without working with the wiki community. Frankly, given the threats and the actions, at this point I see no solution will ever be acceptable to them short of ensuring the AFA page stays filled with anti-AFA bias. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 22:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Place comments here

Keith Ellison paragraph

Since there's been some controversy over the mention of Keith Ellison before, I'd like to explain in full why I rewrote it to avoid misunderstanding:

• Keith Ellison is not definitively the first Muslim in Congress. There is debate over whether John Randolph of Roanoke, who served in Congress in the early 1800s, was a Muslim while he was in office (source).
• The original version refers to the AFA releasing an article entitled "A first for America..." and a seperate Action Alert. The article in question was the action alert.
• The mention of Dennis Prager and Michael Savage as "backing" the AFA is misleading. In their Action Alert, the AFA uses Prager's piece to explain the incident, but that is all. I don't know how Michael Savage was involved in this, as he's not mentioned in either of the sources provided. The fact that the two shared the AFA's viewpoint does not constitute a "backing" of the organization.
• The "contradiction to House procedure" was nonexistent. The AFA Action Alert makes no distinction between the official swearing-in ceremony and the unofficial one in which Ellison used the Koran.
• The original version states that the AFA demanded that all federal officials take an oath of office on the Bible. The Action Alert refers only to the swearing in of "Representatives and Senators". There are other federal officials who are sworn into office, including the President.
• The fact that the Koran belonged to Thomas Jefferson at one point is irrelevant to the AFA or their objection. I removed the mention and the source associated with it.
• I replaced the Findarticles.com reference with a link to the AFA's original Action Alert, which I believe was archived on their website when the incident blew over (thus making links to the Action Alert go dead; I found this using a Google search) If it goes dead in the future, another source can be easily found using Google.

Citadel18080 02:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying/cleaning up this paragraph. I made some minor formatting changes, including adding back in the FindArticles article; it doesn’t hurt to have two sources, incase one goes dead or something. —Christopher Mann McKay 05:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Why did you switch Ellison back to being "the first Muslim" in Congress without explanation? Again, the matter is historically disputed and not definitively factual, so it should not be included in Misplaced Pages. If you dispute my reasoning for putting that in, please discuss it here before reverting it. Citadel18080 22:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

There was this source stating Ellison was the first Muslim in Congress; however, you deleted this source from the article when you re-formatted the paragraph. While you might believe John Randolph of Roanoke was the first Muslim elected to Congress because of an AFA article; there is no proof of this. The Washington Post is a reliable source, especially when compared to the AFA site you reference that quotes WallBuilders. Also, note, as pointed out on Misplaced Pages: Historians reject assertions that Randolph at any time was a Muslim; the only evidence is one letter in 1818 in which he said that as a youth he rooted for the Muslim side when reading about the Crusades. There is no need to remove "the first Muslim" from this article. —Christopher Mann McKay 22:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hold on, there. I never said that I believed that Randolph was a Muslim, I simply said that he might have been a Muslim. The source I included was simply the first place I noticed it. I did, in fact, read the Misplaced Pages article Conversion of John Randolph of Roanoke before I wrote that in, which stopped me from saying that Ellison was the second Muslim to be elected in Congress. I don't know what you think is wrong with Wall Builder's, as I'd never heard of them prior to reading the AFA article. If you have evidence that it is an unreliable source on the issue of Randolph, please present it. Otherwise, the phrasing "a Muslim" is more approriate. By the way, the AFA article also mentions concerns from the press over Randolph's religion when he was elected, which constitues further evidence.

By the way, what was the purpose of that "converting to Islam" link you provided? Citadel18080 23:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Never mind the link I added; it was a mistake. In addition to the Washington Post, the following organizations also reported Randolph was the first Muslim elected to Congress: CNN, MSNBC, ABC News, Christian Science Monitor , New York Times, BBC, U.S. Department of State, Media Matters, Fox News, CBS News, and many more. All of these nation-wide, very large news sources have people employed to check their facts and I doubt all of these organizations just somehow didn’t check their facts on this particular story. I don't believe Wall Builders, some Christian organization that most people have never heard of, over major news sources. Just because some un-known organization thinks something is true does not make it true, especially when there are no historical facts or evidence to support their claims. —Christopher Mann McKay 04:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you read what WallBuilders said about John Randolph? I just did (source). They do not make the claim that Randolph was the first Muslim in Congress, only that he was possibly the first Muslim in Congress. Like you, they cite countless popular media sources saying that Ellison was the first Muslim in Congress and even state that they may be right. As for the lack of "historical facts or evidence", the WallBuilders article cites a John Randolph biography written in 1818, so I don't think they're lacking for historical evidence. Citadel18080 05:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I changed the wording to "reportedly the first Muslim." Are you agreed to keeping this wording, or do you still want to remove to reference to "first Muslim" entirely? —Christopher Mann McKay 01:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I changed it back to "a Muslim". No offense, but "Reportedly" suggests that the assertion that Ellison was the first Muslim was intentionally wrong, when it may either be right or an unintentional mistake. I really would not be suprised if a bunch of news agencies on deadlines didn't bother to check a biography on an obscure Congressman from two hundred years ago. Citadel18080 02:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The only reason I put in "reportedly" was because you seem determined to removed "the first Muslim" when it has relevance because the AFA then, after the first Muslim was elected, decided to start their activism against using the Koran to swearing in. IMO, reportedly does not assert something it wrong, but that something is contested or challenged. This provides valuable information to the reader, that is why all the news articles mentioned it.—Christopher Mann McKay 02:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

What exactly are you trying to do? You asked if I still wanted to remove the reference and did not indicate that you had a problem with it, so I put it back in. Now you have a problem with it? If you took issue with the wording "a Muslim" after I linked to the Wall Builders article, then you should have said so. Since you presented no objection, I assumed that you had accepted the premise that Randolph may have been a Muslim. I'm not "determined" to remove that particular piece of information; I simply want to make sure that the article is as factual as possible. This sounds like a misunderstanding. Citadel18080 04:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I should have made my stance more clear, as I do not want you thinking I had no objection. I don't think "the first Muslim" should be removed b/c it is important to let readers know that; therefore, I don't think "a Muslim" should be used. If you don’t like using "the first Muslim" then use "reportedly the first Muslim" because reportedly does not imply that statement is wrong, as you claim. —Christopher Mann McKay 22:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not a big deal. "Reportedly" is fine.Citadel18080 18:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Broader concerns of AFA

Hi. I made some changes to include what is obvious about AFA - the fact that they do actually have a lot of potentially valid or even popular concerns about the future of America

I can't say I agree with all they have to say, but the fact is they do hold quite a broad range of concerns. These do need addressing if the article is to encompass the broad facts about AFA. I realize the bulletpoints have been removed into para form before, but they really do need to be filled out with at least a sentence each so that the reader understands what it is about. The AFA isn't only concerned with the HS agenda issues. It may also be an option to follow that broader structure throughout the article until the criticism section. Hal Cross 07:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding more information on the AFA. I previously removed the bullets and put it into a paragraph form because I don't think bullets should be used if the information can read well in paragraph form, which is also what WP:MOS recommends. I agree the bullets need to be filled out, but after they are filled out, IMO, they should be formatted back into paragraph form. I will research some and try to add more to the bullets. —Christopher Mann McKay 19:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this edit: I feel the same way regarding indentions, my point being that encyclopedias are usually written in paragraph form and I believe we should keep Misplaced Pages articles as encyclopedic as possible by not using bullets or excessive indentions when the information can be merged into paragraph form and read well. However, I don't think it will be good to format into paragraph form until 'Culture and society' and 'Education' are expanded. —Christopher Mann McKay 21:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:MOS#Bulleted lists suggests using "indented paragraphs" instead of lists. Since this is a long list, I'm not convinced that it would look good in standard paragraph form. Citadel18080 21:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

IMO, there should be be no list at all, bulleted or indented. I don't think believe a list is warrented. Misplaced Pages:List guideline#Purpose of lists does not recommend using a list in this type of situation. IMO, explaining the goals of an organization does not have any special reason to be formatted in a list. —Christopher Mann McKay 21:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I think its a great overview of the main issues involved in AFA concerns. So as an overview with explaining sentences its fine with bullets. Further explanation can be added below in paragraph form. Which is why I added the larger section "homosexual agenda", which follows the issue, and which was subsequently changed to "homosexuality" by another editor under the unsupported assertion that it was somehow more neutral. Actually its just inconsistent. AFA is actually concerned mainly with the HS agenda . Hal Cross 03:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I don’t mean to fill up this page with my comments, but I want to clarify some. The point I am trying to make is that Misplaced Pages articles use lists for specific reasons, such as organizing something chronologically, by theme, for annotation, or in 'See also' and 'External links' sections. Anything in a list format should be in list format because of a special purpose and I see no special purpose here. Having un-necessary lists does serve any real purpose, but rather only makes the article look un-encyclopedic and ill-formatted. Most every Class A and Featured Article do not use lists unless they are absolutely necessary; think about it. —Christopher Mann McKay 08:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

"Homosexual agenda" section title

Homosexual agenda is inherently POV and controversial; please read the linked article. Homosexuality is a far more neutral term. AUTiger » talk 05:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Its ok AuTiger. I sorted it out. Homosexuality per se is not the issue. It would be POV to say the AFA are about homosexuality or anti homosexuality. They state themselves that they are not anti homosexual. Its the concern of the AFA and what they call the homosexual agenda that really counts. I read the article you helpfully linked up, and I think there are some differences between what AFA considers the agenda, and what is mentioned there. So the title should reflect what the AFA is concerned about in this case. Hal Cross 05:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

CMM, you also changed the title back to homosexuality. You gave no reason.

I'm just thinking about why you prefer the section to be titled with the sweeping statement - Homosexuality. Do you have any particular response to that? I have given my reasons for the more specific and on topic section title above. Hal Cross 08:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

My view on the title is that your revised one was technically correct but aesthetically awful - it was too long, basically. Calling it "Homosexual agenda" is a bit one-sided. It's clear that the AFA has issues with certain aspects of homosexuality, so I think it's fine to have a broad topic heading and then be specific under that. Orpheus 08:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hal Cross, I changed it back because I think the title is unnecessary. Homosexuality is a one-word title and encompasses a broad array of activism, which is desirable in a section name for this article. It is not "POV to say the AFA are about homosexuality or anti homosexuality" because the title does not suggest the AFA is pro-homosexual, anti-homosexual or any thing like that. —Christopher Mann McKay 08:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting CMMK. Could you point me towards the policy recommendations on desirable section naming convention that you seem to be referring to? Hal Cross 12:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm was not referring to any policy or guideline. —Christopher Mann McKay 16:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

"Homosexuality" is a state of living, while the "Homosexual Agenda" is an organized advocacy campaign. While it is opposed to both, the AFA's activism activities focus on the latter. I recommend using "Opposition to 'Homosexual Agenda'" or even simply "Homosexual Agenda" as the title for this section. Either way, if the words "Homosexual Agenda" are in quotes, it will be clear that it is the AFA's description, and not an editor attempting to add POV. Citadel18080 22:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to using "Homosexuality", "Homosexual Agenda", or "Opposition to 'Homosexual Agenda'" for the section title. I just think "AFA's opposition to what they call the homosexual agenda" should not be used as the section title, as it can be shortened. First I thought “Homosexualy” should be used instead of “Homosexual Agenda” because it is a broad category that can also encompass not only the Homosexual Agenda, but also ex-gay activism; however, there is no ex-gay activism currently referenced in this section, so as long as there is only activism surrounding what the AFA views as the Homosexual Agenda, then I’m not opposed to changing the title. —Christopher Mann McKay 23:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Great at last we're getting through. I agree my line is technically correct. Thats the main point. There is no rule for brief or single word section titles. Being descriptive is important in this case as it is specific. The biggest problem with this article is the fact that it was made to look like AFA is totally about anti-homosexuality. Firstly, the court is still out on that matter and its going to be an argument as long as people deny it. The article needs to be made far more specific to each of the broad concerns and issues in AFA. I hope people notice that I'm not here snipping away at critical information. I am interested in presenting it properly though and as an encyclopedic broad vista rather than a blinkered attack article. I noticed yesterday what seems to me to be vandalism I'm sure a broadly presented article will not be easy to maintain. But thats the job at hand. Hal Cross 00:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) WP:MOS says, regarding section headings, "the wording tends to be short (more than 10 words may defeat the purpose);". Regarding the heading "Homosexuality", I'm curious - why do you assume that a section title of "Homosexuality" actually says "anti-homosexuality"? Please correct me if I've mischaracterised your position. It seems to apply to the categories as well. Homosexuality, censorship, discrimination and so on are neutral terms. They don't imply that the organisation takes a position for or against. That's left to the reader to decide after reading all points of view, presented in the article. Orpheus 03:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say Homosexuality means anti homosexuality. I do say that having homosexuality as a title is part of the POV pushing that has had this article held hostage for far too long. The article should mention what AFA says it is concerned with, and then there is room for any criticism you wish to add. But first it should be clear what AFA states. One concern is the HS agenda. That is why it should be stated as such. You placing homosexuality as a title basically takes the specific statements in the text (regarding HS agenda) blown out of proportion to include everything to do with homosexuality. Its an extremely bad way to edit. Its misleading. It looks exactly like the sort of POV pushing that this article could do without. I'll assume good faith though and ask you again: Why do you continually persist in having such a sweeping title for this specific issue? Hal Cross 04:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The short reason is that "Homosexual agenda" is a loaded term. Homosexuality is a neutral one, and neutral terms are good for section titles. It's not misleading in any way. To me, seeing a "Homosexuality" section in the article says that the AFA is concerned with one or more things related, in some way, to homosexuality. The text of the article then makes it clear what that is. I don't think it's POV to say that the AFA is involved in activism that has something to do with homosexuality. Orpheus 05:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

We seem to be way past that issue Orpheus. Why are you bringing it up? The main point is to represent the view of AFA correctly. The whole section is about AFA's opposition to what they call the homosexual agenda. As such that is the title. Its really very simple. I don't think anybody is interested in presenting the other term "homosexual agenda" even though it is far more specific than "homosexuality". The section is specific to what AFA call the HS agenda and thats "all about it", quoting Dickens. I will leave your motivations to the opinions of other editors. Hal Cross 11:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with the broader, non-specific term? It's a section heading, not the section itself. The lengthy section title full of qualifiers is stylistically undesirable. I'm not sure exactly what you mean regarding my motivations. Perhaps you could clarify? Orpheus 11:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

In cooperation with all views here I have made the section title shorter to 5 words only. Opposition to the "homosexual agenda". With the brevity requirement totally satisfied, the title is now brief, technically correct, specific and stylistically correct. Now, I will clarify what I mean by your motivations. I will leave your motivations to other editors. Other editors may make decisions about what you have been trying to do. I will leave it up to them. Hal Cross 01:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Orpheus, I agree with your arguments and see nothing wrong with using "Homosexuality", but multiple persons devoted to changing it want it changed and I don't care to debate or oppose it. I see neither "Homosexuality" nor "Homosexual Agenda" as POV pushing because the title is not implying the AFA is in favor or opposed to the topic. I prefer to use "Homosexuality" but then again, others prefer otherwise and I think the best thing is to compromise. However, regarding the recent edit: after thinking about it, I strongly disagree with using "Opposition to 'Homosexual Agenda'" instead of the more simple "Homosexual Agenda", if it determined to change the name of this section. —Christopher Mann McKay 02:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with the "quoted" version. It shows that the term is not necessarily accepted as moot, but it is the term that the AFA use. I've changed it to "The homosexual agenda" to reinforce that. Orpheus 05:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Former personnel

The former leader of the AFA California affiliate, Scott Lively, is a co-author of The Pink Swastika, a book which states that many leaders in the German Nazi regime, including Hitler himself, were homosexual and state that eight of the top ten serial killers in the US were homosexuals.

I moved this here for discussion. I also invited FeloniousMonk for more input. I have read through the prior discussion with LAEC and FM and there are other issues to discuss here. For example, this isn't a criticism, so it seems to be irrelevant to that section. Its also outside the scope of AFA. Its not an AFA publication, its not a belief of the AFA, and its a co-written piece of work. Thats why it seems to be so outside the relevance of this article. Feel free to discuss. Hal Cross 05:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm new to this discussion so pardon me if I don't have a full grasp of the background of this particular article and its editing history. Without additional context, the above statement does seem out of place in this article. One of the cited articles doesn't even mention the AFA in connection with this book or its authors and the other only makes a passing mention of the California branch of the AFA. Without additional references that make explicit the connection between this book and the AFA, I'm afraid this material simply doesn't belong in this article. For us as Misplaced Pages editors to implicitly suggest or explicitly link these topics without stronger supporting references is original research at best and POV at worst. --ElKevbo 05:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome ElKevbo. Hal Cross 06:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

There's also this article as a potential source. I think the book is relevant as the publically stated opinion of a senior AFA figure - thoughts? Orpheus 05:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Orpheus. The link is further evidence that the pink swastika book is just a passing mention. Its not an encyclopedic addition and in co-writing that book, the author is unassociated with AFA, the other co-author is also unassociated. Hal Cross 06:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC) P.S On reflection I think the para could even be classed as tendentious editing . Hal Cross 06:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I remember discussing the mention of Lively some time ago. I still think that, if anything, this mention should be on a seperate article for either Lively or AFA California. The AFA is a big enough organization to warrant seperate articles for its affiliates. For example, the article on the United States does not mention scandals related to state governors. Citadel18080 17:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't that long ago. I would strongly support moving the reference to an American Family Association of California page, if such an article existed - but it doesn't yet. Also, the AFA is a bit more narrowly focused than the United States, so things like this carry proportionally more weight. Orpheus 18:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find enough info on AFA California to warrant a seperate article, so I created a List of American Family Association state affiliates and moved the Lively information there.Citadel18080 18:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Don't forget to stick a stub template in there if you're not planning to expand it yourself (I'm not sure if you are or not, so I won't add one myself). Orpheus 19:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to add some more information, but will probably include a stub template anyway. Citadel18080 22:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Good call, Citadel. Its nice to see things are starting to get into more appropriate weighting and perspective. Hal Cross 05:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Categories, yet again

OK, looks like this has cropped up again. See the summary of arguments above. See the large and free-ranging discussion on the archive page. Weigh in with new ideas here. The current status, as I see it, is that there's no consensus either way and we should be stepping through WP:DR and attempting to resolve the content dispute. Orpheus 04:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Orpheus, I have no problem at all with you applying for any kind of dispute resolution. You want the categories in the article. Others see the categories as controversial and have supplied plenty of evidence to say they are controversial. There is nothing wrong with such editors removing the categories whenever they see fit. By all means continue with your application for dispute resolution. Hal Cross 04:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

1. "People & Events". http://www.mbherald.com/ Mennonite Brethren Herald]. 1999-11-05. Retrieved 2007-06-14. In their controversial book, The Pink Swastika, Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams assert that many leading members of the Nazi party in Germany were homosexuals. They also state that eight of the top ten serial killers in the US were homosexuals, including Donald Garvey, John Wayne Gacy, Patrick Wayne Kearney, Bruce Davis and Jeffrey Dahmer. The Apr. 22 Globe and Mail reported that the Columbine high school killers 'professed to be bisexuals'. – RTV Bulletin, Western Report {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); External link in |publisher= (help)
2. "Religious Right Groups Involved in Antigay Incidents". People For the American Way. Retrieved 2007-06-14. the controversial book, The Pink Swastika,

• NA-Class United States pages
• NA-importance United States pages
• NA-Class United States articles of NA-importance
• NA-Class Mississippi pages
• NA-importance Mississippi pages
• WikiProject Mississippi articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics