Talk:Brian Camenker

A full gamut of Massachusetts culture war articles, and nothing from the Massachusetts New? How times change, I guess. Stilgar135 06:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Terminology
I'll admit that "attention" is more neutral than "notoriety", but I don't see how you can reasonably replace "anti-gay" with "pro-family". His activism is entirely based on opposition to homosexuality. Stilgar135 06:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

"Anti-Gay" is a loaded word. "Pro-Family" is more neutral. I replaced the term with "Christian" as it is more neutral than "Pro-Family", and not loaded like "Anti-Gay." Ghostmonkey57 01:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57
 * But Christianity isn't the cornerstone of his beliefs. I've read articles by and about him for years, and religion almost never comes up. Beyond that, he doesn't advocate for school prayer or against abortion or any other standard right-wing Christian causes. Again, "pro-family" means different things. Can you actually deny that Camenker isn't anti-gay? Of those three options, it's the only one that really encompasses everything that he is. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to simply call him a conservative activist and emphasize, in the article's body, that he focuses on homosexuality and sexual education. Stilgar135 01:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

YouTube links
This article is one of [ thousands] on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message on the talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material violating someone's copyright. If you are not sure whether the link on this article should be removed or if you would like to help spread this message, contact us on User talk:J.smith/YouTube Linklist. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 00:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality
Could this article be any more in violation of WP:NPOV? Discuss. --Alexc3 (talk) 01:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, we could add some of Brian's Holocaust Denial arguments (unopposed, of course). Kidding aside, I agree completely, this article is hideously bad, POV-wise. The language demonizes one side, while glorifying the other, all four references are to anti-gay publications, etc. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Does this article even meet the criteria for notability? WP:BIO says, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." I'm thinking of just putting this page up for deletion. --Alexc3 (talk) 23:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Never mind, there's some Boston Globe articles on him. --Alexc3 (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I would hope that Wikipedia enforces the neutrality of this entry. The original entry painted a very biased view of this person. I have documented the activities of Brian Camenker and his groups here They think they are "heros" but the facts, well, read for yourself. All the changes I made to this and the MassResitance were provided with sources (and not just other blogs), the sources were either newspaper articles or even the group's own emails which still can be found on the web. In this 2004 Boston Globe article it states that this is his full time job: Camenker, 51, formed the Article 8 Alliance in January shortly after the state Supreme Judicial Court legalized gay marriage. The group employs three full-time staff members, including Camenker. He said that, as of Oct. 1, the group had $30,000 in the bank. It is nonprofit but not tax-exempt. He is not unlike Peter LaBarbera of [Americans for Truth about Homosexuality. They believe they are doing "God's work" by exposing the homosexual agenda, which they claim exists and know. ('Can you get me a copy'?)--[[User:MassWatch|MassWatch]] (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

"Homosexual agenda"
Mr. Camenker and his supporters keep inserting loaded terminology such as "homosexual lobby", "homosexual agenda" and "vicious". Such terms have no place in an NPOV article. Corvus cornix talk  02:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"Pro-family"
How about changing "pro-family groups" to "groups against homosexuality" or something? That's rather more specific, and I'd think it's NPOV ... MassR would presumably agree with the characterization (?).

Or at least "groups in favor of conservative family values"? "Pro-family" is just really a meaningless term. Organizations like MassEquality would call themselves pro-family too, and obviously they need to be distinguished from MassR and similar. —Switchercat talkcont 19:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Or maybe "groups with conservative attitudes toward homosexuality." Meh. —Switchercat talkcont 19:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Good catch. Note that the citation says "pro-family" - we actually discussed this issue over on MassResistance and came up with the wording/wklink that I just changed this one to match; hope you find it an improvement.  —EqualRights (talk) 19:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

"Controversy" section
So, before this turns into a full-blown edit war... The problem I have with the "along with other conservative, pro-family groups" verbage is that there is an unspoken implication that the SPLC equates "conservative" with "hate", or "family" with "hate". The fact that the other groups SPLC implicated also happened to consider themselves "conservative, pro-family" is as relevant as saying that "Stalin, along with other mustachioed gentlemen, is a very bad man," implying that the mustache is what makes him bad, not the mass-murdering.

No. Without an WP:RS to back it up, we must not use any wording that implies what criteria SPLC used to make this determination.

As a compromise, I would potentially be okay with something like "along with other groups such as the American Family Association". I'm still not crazy about it, because, I would ask, why is this relevant? However, in that case, it is left for the reader to infer a commonality between MassResistance and AFA. Folks like my friend LegitimateAndCompelling will surely infer that the shared trait among both groups is conservatism, while differently-minded readers can draw their own conclusions based on what they know about the positions and tactics of the AFA. --13.12.254.95 (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Allow me to pontificate further: The SPLC also named a number of anti-immigration groups in the same list of alleged hate groups.  However, I'm sure everyone here agrees it would seem rather bizarre to state that "MassResistance, along with a number of anti-immigration groups, was named as a hate group by the SPLC."  Right?  What's the relevance?
 * Now, I'm sure the reply is to say that a number of the groups SPLC named are indeed "conservative, pro-family." But, where is the reliable source that says so?  Without that, it is original research to draw this correlation.
 * If you come up with a reliable unbiased source that says SPLC regularly names "conservative, pro-family" groups as hate groups, then go for it. Or, another phrase would work too.  Until then, it is WP:OR to make this implication. --13.12.254.95 (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The SPLC statement by itself cannot stand alone. It is simply not encyclopedic to make a naked political statement of listing such an organization with Nazi organizations as if they are also Nazi organizations.  It's pure POV.  It does not belong here.  If it does, it needs to have the other information to allow people to accurately judge the accuracy of the obvious effort by the SPLC to make conservative family organizations look like Nazis.
 * You asked for another RS. Well you provide one.  You provide another source besides the SPLC that lists MassR on the same hit list as Nazi organizations.  It's the SPLC that's not the RS, here.  You will not be able to find another reliable source equating MassR with Nazis.  You produce that source. If you insist on removing the balance, I will push for removing the SPLC non-RS in the first place.--LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You may have a point about removing the section altogether, although you do not have a point about "it needs to have the other information to allow people to accurately judge the accuracy of the obvious effort by the SPLC to make conservative family organizations look like Nazis," because that is your opinion. If we're going to start injecting our own personal opinions, I might put in something like, "MassResistance, along with other groups which oppose basic civil rights for gay people and immigrants, have been identified by the SPLC as a hate group."  That's the commonality I see:  All of those groups think that homosexuals should be denied equal rights (okay, some of the groups named by the SPLC only demand draconian and ineffective policies for dealing with the immigration issue).  But that's my opinion, so it doesn't belong in the article.  Actually, it doesn't belong on the Talk page either, but you are drawing me out here.
 * I disagree somewhat with your logic about it being only a "naked statement" by SPLC -- unlike for the phrase you are demanding, the sentence itself is sourced by a mainstream news publication. However, on further searching I could only find that one news publication as covering the SPLC's naming of MassResistance.  There are bazillions of blogs, but maybe not that much mainstream news coverage.  In that sense, I can see a WP:N argument for removing it -- even though the case for removing the other phrase is much stronger, because there are WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:OR arguments against that phrase.
 * If I take you literally, you say "You provide another source besides the SPLC that lists MassR on the same hit list as Nazi organizations." You miss the point here.  The question is whether SPLC's listing of them on that list was notable.  If the section read "MassResistance is a hate group" and cited SPLC, of course that would fail WP:RS -- just like citing MassResistance to assert that SPLC attacks pro-family groups fails that test too.  So WP:RS is clearly satisfied here: We have a mainstream news source (Daily Tribune, not SPLC) which is reporting on the SPLC's assertion.
 * What you should be asking me is, "You provide at least two or three unbiased sources that thought the SPLC's assertion was newsworthy." Heh, I shouldn't help you out here, but I guess it's only fair.  I'll think about that...
 * Also, you did not respond to my compromise wording of "along with other organizations such as the American Family Association." I'm going to change it to that and see if we are both happy.  This way it is purely factual, and readers can draw their own conclusions:  People like you will read it as "pro-family", and people like me will read "anti-gay", and then everyone is happy.  Or, uh, happy-ish. --13.12.254.95 (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Better. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Notability tag
Will Beback added a notability tag, but I saw no Talk section on it. So this is it.

I agree with Will Beback that notability is an issue here. Perhaps this page is best merged into MassResistance. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Some tags require a talk page entry. Template:notability does not. In any case, the subject does not not appear to have notability aside from MR, so merging them is logical.   Will Beback    talk    14:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)