Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:::::Citadel - what the AFA calls itself on its website is not really relevant. Misplaced Pages is not an AFA website (although I can see that many people try to make it one). Some people, such as yourself, believe "homophobia" is a controversial term. But the AFA are a controversial organisation. And regardless of what anybody says, they match the definition of homophobia to a tee because the definition includes reference to "discrimination against homosexuals". They don't have to fear and hate them as well (although many would say that it's obvious they do), they just have to purposely discriminate in order to be categorised as homophobic. And as for these so-called compromises, the truth should never be compromised just because some people are uncomfortable with it. ] 02:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::Citadel - what the AFA calls itself on its website is not really relevant. Misplaced Pages is not an AFA website (although I can see that many people try to make it one). Some people, such as yourself, believe "homophobia" is a controversial term. But the AFA are a controversial organisation. And regardless of what anybody says, they match the definition of homophobia to a tee because the definition includes reference to "discrimination against homosexuals". They don't have to fear and hate them as well (although many would say that it's obvious they do), they just have to purposely discriminate in order to be categorised as homophobic. And as for these so-called compromises, the truth should never be compromised just because some people are uncomfortable with it. ] 02:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::: Well, Misplaced Pages isn't really about the Truth. It's about what's verifiable. The question here is: Does the definition of homophobia include discrimination against homosexuals? Does the AFA advocate discrimination against homosexuals (regardless of whether they call it that or not)? If the answer to both of those questions is yes, then the category belongs. ] 02:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
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.
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. 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
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. 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 page is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. 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
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
I see no problem in keeping the "Homophobia" category. As it has been previously stated here and elsewhere, "homophobia" is actually a neutral term referring to fear, loathing and/or discrimination against homosexuals. It is neutral because it DOES NOT state whether homophobia is socially or politically right or wrong, it merely describes what it means. The actions of the AFA clearly and unequivocally fall into the category of homophobia, primarily based on the issue of discrimination. The AFA campaigns to block equal rights for gay citizens and generally tries to prevent the "acceptability" of homosexuality in American society. This is the very meaning of discrimination. It is not POV, it is a fact - and cannot logically be disputed. To be quite honest, I am pretty appalled that we as Wikipedians are even having to go to such extensive lengths to prove a very straight-forward fact.Kookoo Star12:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Kookoo Star. For the sake of clarity, I've put your response in a new discussion thread. The issue with Category:Homophobia is one of specificity. "Homophobia" has become a buzz word in the heated gay rights debate. It is not a socialy accepted frame of reference, and therefore not an approriate place to categorize the AFA in a politically and socially neutral encyclopedia. In other words, the average Internet user would not come to the AFA article, read it, and consider the organization homophobic. The AFA's involvement in the gay rights movement has been documented under Category:History of LGBT civil rights in the United States. Citadel1808016:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Kookoo Star. I have made multiple arguments in support of keeping the Homophobia category after it was removed and spent a lot of time debating it. This was during the same time I was attending school and could not devote a lot of time arguing about keeping the category, so I just gave up debating it and agreed to remove it. Multiple other people have stated they believe category:homophobia should belong, so now I believe the category should be included on this article for the same reasons Kookoo Star stated above.
Citadel18080: "In other words, the average Internet user would not come to the AFA article, read it, and consider the organization homophobic" is opinion and not true. Plenty of information on the article explains the AFA advocates discrimination of homosexuals and further proof is on Talk:American Family Association/Archive 2#Summary of argument in opposition of removal of categories. Homophobia is a neutral term and when category:homophobia was taken to WP:CfD, it was an overwhelming keep, which shows there is nothing wrong with using category:homophobia, just as there is nothing wrong with using category:antisemitism. —Christopher Mann McKay17:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The category itself is not in question. Homophobia is in the dictionary, and I have no problem with articles which expand upon its meaning being categorized as such. Homophobia is a politically/socially charged term, however. To include articles of organizations which oppose gay rights in the category is no different than making a category entitled "yuppies" or "RINOs" (That's Republican in Name Only for thsoe who aren't from the U.S.)
Multiple users believe category:homophobia should stay and multiple users believe it should be removed; that is not considered consensus. I only agreed to removing it in the past because I was tired of debating it over and over and I was short on time due to school. —Christopher Mann McKay23:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The question of whether Category:Homophobia is a perjorative and charged category was dealt with in the CfD it survived, and the community consensus was "keep". I think the AFA belongs in that category. I can see that there may be a case for renaming the homophobia category, but this isn't the place for discussing that - there's a specific forum for renaming categories. Orpheus00:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
We're not talking about Category:Homophobia, we're talking about this article. Orpheus, you agreed that Category:History of LGBT civil rights in the United States was a suitable replacement. Christopher Mann McKay, you made no objection whatsoever when Orpheus made this statement, which indicated consensus, not a lack of time. We had an excellent compromise that acknowledged both sides of this discussion and, if we're all tired of debating this topic, I recommend that we stick with it. Agree/Disagree? Citadel1808000:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Just because there was an agreement before, does not mean that agreement is set in stone and cannot change. During the dicussion about the categories, I said: "I prefer to keep Category:Homophobic, but maybe it's best remove it, as I don’t have enough time to debate it and I’m not opposed to comprising," so obviously I had a problem with the category, but didn’t have the time to debate it, so I just comprised and agreed to removed. I now changed my mind. Lets stop talking about the past agreement, as I don't see how it is revelant; some of the users who are in favor of adding the category weren't even in the dicussion that led to the agreement to remove category:homophobia. —Christopher Mann McKay01:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I removed homophobia cat again. It is pure POV. Phobia is fear. The AFA is not afraid. I will go to the mat on this again. Did we take a, what, one month hiatus from the wiki policy violations and now we are back to policy (small p) violations? I am ready for another go at this. I will follow that wiki policy and stop others from violating it. Homophobia stays out as agreed, unless we talk it out all over again with the newbies involved. And if we do talk it out, the cat stays out while we talk about it. If not, we should jump the mediation ladder and go straight to the top as this would be just part of the near half year long stranglehold on wiki policy that the inclusion of this cat exemplified in the first place. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling01:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
"Phobia is fear" - correction: "Homophobia – irrational fear of, aversion to, ordiscrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals". There is no WP:NPOV violation or any other Misplaced Pages Policy violations by having this category. —Christopher Mann McKay01:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Two things, LAEC - first, there's no policy violation here. It's a dispute over whether the category is appropriate for this article. If it was a POV accusation to put the category in an article in general, then it wouldn't have survived CfD. If you disagree with that then this isn't the right place - file another CfD and see what the community says about it. Second, please drop the "near half year long" thing. The dispute lasted six weeks, check the dates. Hyperbole helps nobody. Orpheus02:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello Citadel, Chris, Orpheus and Legit. With regards to Citadel's characterisation of the term "homophobia" as being socially/politically charged - that is adding your own slant to the term. As I said in my previous message above, the term is actually neutral as it does not make any assumptions in whether hating, fearing or discriminating against homosexuals is right or wrong. If you are suggesting that linking the AFA to the category of homophobia will put them in a bad light when other people read the article - I imagine that some people will see them in a bad light and some wont, depending on their own personal politics. I also imagine many won't care. We cannot prevent the different ways in which different people respond to the word "homophobia" but this should not be used as a motive to obscure the truth. As far as true definitions go, the AFA's actions quite easily link them to the term homophobia no more or less than they link themselves to "Christianity" categories. This is without prejudicial slant or attempting to skewer the truth to make them look better or worse than they actually are, it is simply fact. They match the definition of homophobia, which is a viable and socially accepted term to describe disrimination against homosexuals. The definition makes no moral judgements, it just defines what the word means. To remove homophobia as a category for the AFA is like removing the category of racism from the KKK article. It simply describes what they do, regardless of whether some people are appalled by it or not. It is the organisations own fault if their actions put them in a bad light with some readers, but I imagine they are aware of this before they do what they do. They choose to do it anyway.Kookoo Star01:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
(od) Why don't we make it "Homophobia in the United States". That seems to have been a successful compromise in the past. Orpheus02:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Orpheus, the "six months" reference may refer to the previous discussion over the cats which occured some time ago without resolution. I'm afraid I can't agree with "Homophobia in the United States" I wouldn't have a problem with something like "Gay rights debate in the United States" or a list of organizations that are accused of homophobia, however. Kooko Star, with regards to the AFA's actions being in a "bad light", the AFA publicly states on its website that it does not hate homosexuals, a key aspect of the definition of "homophobia". While primary sources are not considered as encyclopedic as secondary sources, it is sufficient to move the declaration of "homophobia" to a list or the article's "criticism" section. Misplaced Pages Category Guideline 8: 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. (Christopher Mann McKay, if you disagree with this guideline, then open an RfC on it. Myself and others believe that it is relevant to this article. Since we disagree so fundamentally, I again recommend that we stick with the original compromise and drop this matter.) Citadel1808002:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Orpheus, we can remove all controversial categories according to WP recommendations. Thats what happens with cats on Misplaced Pages. Right now it seems that Kookoo Star is threatening the compromise by trying to start up another controversial cat war. All controversial cats can be removed according to recommendations, including censorship in the US, and discrimination in the US. I believe Kookoo Star needs to read the archives very closely. Hal Cross02:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
That was a tongue in cheek suggestion. The only reason that Homophobia was removed is that it is a subcategory of Discrimination. At the time, Discrimination was in the article and having a subcat was a clear breach of WP:CAT. That's no longer the case. I think there's plenty of evidence that the AFA belongs with the other articles in the Homophobia category, enough to make it uncontroversial. Remember - controversy doesn't just come about from Misplaced Pages editors disagreeing. We need to take account of the category guidelines, but not be absolutely bound by them - that's why they're guidelines. If there's a good reason for adding a category, even if some people disagree with it, then that's possible. I think there's a good reason in this case, others disagree. Fine - let's discuss the reasons, but appealing to policy isn't the way to resolve this. Orpheus02:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
This is more than about that particular category. There was a compromise involved in the whole set of categories. Now that editors are trying to break the compromise, then WP recommendations can be followed again, and all controversial cats can be removed. Its an easy solution and you can use lists instead. Hal Cross02:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Citadel - what the AFA calls itself on its website is not really relevant. Misplaced Pages is not an AFA website (although I can see that many people try to make it one). Some people, such as yourself, believe "homophobia" is a controversial term. But the AFA are a controversial organisation. And regardless of what anybody says, they match the definition of homophobia to a tee because the definition includes reference to "discrimination against homosexuals". They don't have to fear and hate them as well (although many would say that it's obvious they do), they just have to purposely discriminate in order to be categorised as homophobic. And as for these so-called compromises, the truth should never be compromised just because some people are uncomfortable with it. Kookoo Star02:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, Misplaced Pages isn't really about the Truth. It's about what's verifiable. The question here is: Does the definition of homophobia include discrimination against homosexuals? Does the AFA advocate discrimination against homosexuals (regardless of whether they call it that or not)? If the answer to both of those questions is yes, then the category belongs. Orpheus02:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Internet resources
Stepping outside the Category dispute for a minute, is the "Internet resources" section reasonable to include? I would argue "No" because it seems to serve primarily as a link farm. These sites are linked through the AFA's website (www.afa.net); they seem extraneous. ZueJay (talk)00:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I changed the name to "Internet operations" to indicate that it describes websites operated by the AFA and not resources for Misplaced Pages users. The links are there because no Misplaced Pages articles have been created for the sites as of yet. Citadel1808000:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The sub-section name change greatly helps explain this section. Perhaps it is the entire Operations section that needs expansion, at least additional explanatory text, as it still seems like a list of links which would be more appropriate as ELs. Hmm...thinking about it. ZueJay (talk)01:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm opposed to removing the 'Internet operations/resources' section because I don’t see it as a violation of WP:NOT#LINK, as the text is describing the various web sites and their purposes, which is important because the AFA has multiple web sites for different purposes. —Christopher Mann McKay01:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
