Christopher Mann McKay
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Christopher_Mann_McKay
|
I will respond to your comment on my talk page, unless you request otherwise. |
AFA
I'd give up on the homophobia category if I were you - it's inflammatory, and would make a good concession to point to if this goes to mediation. Orpheus 05:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Homophobia is a word recognized to describe people, just like Anti-Semitism or Racism, which are both categories. It is in the dictionary and is it is not POV, but a fact if an organization is homophobic. I don't feel any need to give up on this, for the sole purpose that some anti-gay rights people will not want to label any organization this, as it may be interpreted as something negative. —Christopher Mann McKayuser talk 05:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the Censorship, Discrimination, and Homophobia categorization dispute. I'd like to resolve this dispute without going any further in the mediation process. First of all, would I be correct in assuming that you're position on the subject is that the AFA belongs in these categories because its actions correspond with the definitions of those categories from the dictionary? Citadel18080 06:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly. Also, other organizations are in those categories, not only AFA. —Christopher Mann McKayuser talk 06:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- My position on this topic is that the dictionary, while being an NPOV and verifiable source, is irrelevant to the American Family Association because it does not directly mention the AFA and using it requires interpretation on the part of the reader. For reasons that I believe I have made clear on the AFA talk page, I do not believe that those definitions correspond to the AFA's activities, thus we have interpreted the dictionary in two different ways.
- Most importantly, since the AFA is an active organization with controversial beliefs, it is not approriate to categorize it in such a way as to pass judgement on those beliefs, and WP:SORT Guideline 8 says as much. For example, by categorizing it under Discrimination, you are saying to the world that it is a definitive fact that the AFA discriminates. Many, many people would disagree with that. If you wanted to put, say, the articles on the Confederate States of America or the Jim Crow Laws in the Discrimination category, I would not disagre, and with you, and neither would others because, as entities, neither exist anymore and are generally accepted by the public to have practiced discrimination. What parts of this do you disagree with? Citadel18080 07:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
My position on this topic is that the dictionary, while being an NPOV and verifiable source, is irrelevant to the American Family Association because it does not directly mention the AFA The problem with that is that you've just ruled out a vast section of Wikipedia material, all of which relies on basic axioms like "We follow dictionary definitions". There's several verifiable sources listed which show that the AFA advocates things that match the definition of discrimination and censorship. Simple rewording is not incompatible with WP:RS. Max Hardcore, for instance, doesn't like his work described as "obscenity" but it's not controversial to describe it as such - the same standard applies here. Orpheus 10:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
you are saying to the world that it is a definitive fact that the AFA discriminates - advocates discrimination. If you want to rename the category (or split it) into "Organisations that discriminate" and "Organisations that advocate discrimination" then go for it. Orpheus 10:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- "There's several verifiable sources listed which show that the AFA advocates things that match the definition of discrimination and censorship." Please read WP:SYN, which is a policy. You are taking examples of the AFA's activities and matching them with the dictionary definitions of censorship, discrimination, and homophobia. "that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia." This is policy, not a guideline. Since the only sources which provide such analysis are advocate groups that oppose AFA, saying that the AFA advocates any of these things is not "self evident or uncontroversial," as WP:CAT guidelines state categorization must be. My dictionary defines self-evident as "evident without need of proof or explanation" and uncontroversial is pretty self-explanatory. Again, according to WP:CAT, a suitable compromise is to use lists instead of categories. Citadel18080 16:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree with your interpretation of WP:SYN, partly because if it was applied the way you suggest most of Wikipedia would no longer exist. However, if you have a look at the Talk:American Family Association I've posted yet more references dealing with the subject, many of which publish "that precise analysis" (including the New York Times and the Indepdendent). Orpheus 17:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- I also believe Citadel is misinterpreting WP:SYN, as there is no synthesis required. It is not A and B and therefore C. It is reading the dictionary definition and seeing if that definition applies to the AFA. No synthesis required. I'm not going to debate guidelines. Guidelines are there to guide, they are not policy and are widely ignored. —Christopher Mann McKayuser talk 17:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, but I'm not here to start up this debate again. Can you provide specific reasons why you will not accept lists as a compromise? Citadel18080 17:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- As stated before. There is no need to remove the categories, as there is no policy violation. That is my reason. I am not in favor of removing something if there is no good reason it should be removed.. —Christopher Mann McKayuser talk 18:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Heads up
LAEC has, since his block, continued his insistance that the edits with which he disagrees are vandalism, supported as such by policy. No amount of effort on my part seems to have any effect - he refuses to even consider the possibility that he is in error. I posted on ANI, and it appears no one is interested in attempting to reason with him. One other editor has made a valiant attempt, and was dismissed by LEAC. See his talk page if you want the history of interactions. My purpose in writing you here is to give you a heads-up - I have suggested to him that he report instances of vandalism to WP:AIV, rather than post polemics. My hope is that after hearing from enough admins that what he is calling vandalism is not vandalism, he may actually begin to absorb that his interpretation of the policy is in fact flawed. However, should he choose to take this approach, it is entirely possible that you will shortly be spammed with vandalism warnings. I ask you not to engage, but rather to simply remove the warnings. You have been admirably calm throughout this, and I hope you will be able to remain so, should my suggestion to LAEC lead to unmerited warning-spam on your page. If you disagree with my suggested approach to any vandalism warnings which may come your way, or if you have other criticism or suggestions for me, I welcome them. I will watchlist this page; you may reply here. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)