User talk:Wnlela

Welcome!

Hello, Wnlela, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits to the page Heterosexuals Organized for a Moral Environment have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! – MrX 18:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012
Hello, I'm Fluffernutter. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Heterosexuals Organized for a Moral Environment seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Wnlela. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may need to consider our guidance on conflicts of interest.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing, as you did at Heterosexuals Organized for a Moral Environment. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — foxj 18:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It would be nice if someone addressed and answered the questions in my last response. Also, isn't it in the interest of Wikipedia to inform others about where a group stands on a certain issue and why? How is that not important and relevant?Wnlela (talk) 06:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "If you're going to block one, shouldn't you block the other?" --Yes, conflicts of interest are dealt with as they are discovered on Wikipedia, and this includes blocking people who disruptively advocate other points of view that you disagree with.
 * "I was only informing people about what my group stands for and why. Don't Wikipedia readers have the right to know that? And if you agree they do, shouldn't they hear it from me and not only from people who disagree with me?" --As noted above, if you see a problem with an article that contains information about you, it is requested that you go through channels that allow unaffiliated third parties to perform unbiased edits to the article. These channels include, again as noted above, the options of "[using] the article's talk page, or tag[ging] the problem text as a problem, or writ[ing] to WP:OTRS." Dekimasu よ! 07:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Having seen your version of the article, Mr Lela, you turned it into a blatantly one-sided propaganda piece pushing your organization's views. You may feel that the current article is biased against you, but the answer to that is not to blatantly bias it the other way, it is to present a balanced picture of the information and views which are out there in the real world. For example, when have you ever seen an encyclopedia who's articles are written in the style of "This is from the pen of H.O.M.E.’s founder, Wayne Lela..."? Articles should be written from a neutral third-party perspective. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I've dealt with this latter objection (re one-sided) above. As I noted above, advocacy groups by their very natures have their biases. Explaining what a group stands for and why, which is what I did, presents THE GROUP'S side---not an opposing group's side. Objectively or neutrally explaining what a group stands for is by its very nature one-sided. Sure, someone (e.g., a neutral third party) not affiliated with my group can describe what my group stands for and why, but if they don't actually quote me or my group's website, I'd say they did a very poor job. With my major edit, no neutral third party has to quote me because I've basically provided the quotes myself. I guarantee you a neutral third party can't explain as accurately as I can what my group stands for and why, UNLESS they quote me extensively (and even if they do, I still think they can't explain it as well as I can because they just don't know it as well as I do).

Information
Although you are not allowed to place biased information about yourself and your organization in the article, you might (if you were unblocked), point to statements of the organization and places where they are published, because they might then be incorporated in the article as the group's own statemnts.

If you place pointers here (but not suggested wording), I'll consider incorporating information about the group in appropriate places in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "biased information." What I provided in my major edit was an accurate description of what my group stands for and reasons why. Do you consider that accurate description biased information? I consider it a statement of facts. While I agree that advocacy groups take stands on issues and so have their biases (for example, I am biased towards what I consider truth and sexual morality), an accurate description of what a group stands for and why is NOT biased. A mean-spirited, inaccurate description WOULD be biased. Also, what do you mean by "pointer"? Can I say what our group stands for and why, exactly like I have, with pointers or links to sections of our website that support my statements? Too, am I still blocked (while whoever is posting biased info about my group isn't blocked)?


 * What you provided is probably (I didn't check your sources, but I generally trust you) what the group states that it stands for. However, what the group actually does is more important.  Although I do not agree with the consensus the SPLC is a reliable source, their description of your group's actions is more objective than your own.
 * By pointers, yes, I do mean, to sections of your website.
 * However, is there anything in the first two sentences of the lede or in the background section which you feel is incorrect or incomplete? That seems a reasonably neutral description.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe I can give a few examples of what was wrong with your version of the article, Wayne. Overall, it was written from the point of view that your opinions are true and factual - you did not just state what your opinions are, you tried to justify them and presented much of them as fact, and that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. But here's a few specific examples...
 * "The reader might as well get some information on H.O.M.E. from the “horse’s mouth” instead of from people who hate what H.O.M.E. stands for (which is morality):" - No, you cannot state that you stand for morality, because that is a subjective judgement. (There are plenty of people who would consider your viewpoint immoral, but we would not allow the article to factually claim HOME stands for immorality either).
 * "... the SPLC erroneously labels decent, moral people as haters simply because they oppose, on principle, homosexual aberrations." - Again, that's your own opinion, not objective neutrality. The article cannot state that you are decent moral people, or that the SPLC's labeling is erroneous, because again that is personal judgment.
 * "it’s well-known that many homosexuals were sexually abused when they were young. It’s also well-known that many homosexuals came from dysfunctional families" - stated a fact, but completely unsourced, and highly contentious. If there were reliable sources showing statistically significant evidence, then perhaps that could be stated as fact - but "it's well known" is not a relaible source as per WP:RS.
 * And it goes on like that - essentially the thing was a publicity piece for your views and your views alone, with some of those views presented as fact, without any supporting references. And that's not what a Wikipedia article should be - it is not a place for airing your views alone, but for presenting a description of your organization balanced according to the actual balance of sources out in the real world. I can perhaps see how you see your version as simple and factual, but that only reinforces the problems with people writing about themselves and their own organizations - the article simply cannot be written from your point of view, and almost certainly not by you personally. -- Boing! said Zebedee / on Tour (talk) 17:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

To answer your question about the first 2 sentences: Yes, I object to my group being labeled "anti-homosexual" or "anti-homosexuality," otherwise the first 2 sentences are okay. There is a reason the contributor used that specific description (the reason being bias against HOME) and apparently couldn't accept my substitution of "pro-heterosexual" or "pro-heterosexuality." My group is called HETEROSEXUALS Organized, etc., not ANTI-HOMOSEXUALS Organized, etc. Just like pro-abortion people biasedly label people against abortion as "anti-abortion" instead of "pro-life," which is the label people opposed to abortion prefer. People choose their words carefully, depending on their "biases." I guess a case could be made that a completely neutral article about HOME would use neither "pro-heterosexual" or "anti-homosexual."

Also, the SPLC is viewed as a biased hate group by a number of pro-family religious organizations. I can document that easily if I need to. That group's descriptions of groups like mine are nowhere near objective (even if, as you say, the SPLC's description of my group's actions is "more objective" than my own). The SPLC has its own serious biases.

Too, don't you think Wikipedia readers would understand that, when I say I stand for morality, I am saying that I stand for what I believe I know is morality? In other words, that that's merely my opinion? And if I can't say "I stand for morality" can I instead say "I stand for what I believe are sound moral principles" or something similar? Is there really much of a difference?

Too, there is a whole section, with footnotes, on sexual abuse being connected to the formation of homosexual orientations on the HOME website. So I can easily point to that to support my statements re sexual abuse. The connection is well-known to various researchers, though maybe not to the general public because of the media basically ignoring the knowledge while instead pushing the unproven "born that way" propaganda.


 * You can object to being called "anti-homosexual", but it won't help. That's how you are described in mainstream media, even disregarding the SPLC.
 * I agree with you about the SPLC, but WP:CONSENSUS appears to be against us. (Some of the "consenus" at WP:RSN seems to consist of editors asserting there is a consensus that SPLC is reliable, with no actual editor comments to support it.)
 * Something should be done with "morality", but I can't think of a good phrasing. If I do, I'll put it in.
 * However, your statement about "sexual abuse being connected to the formation of homosexual orientations" is considered bogus by mainstream psychology. The most that could be said is that your website makes the claim and and claims supporting evidence, but the mainstream view would have to be added.
 * — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * And Wayne, you plainly are anti-homosexuality. It's blatantly clear from your website and from independent sources. And that's what makes you notable - without that fact, there very likely wouldn't even be a Wikipedia article about you. However you prefer to describe yourself, it's what reliable independent sources say that decides how a Wikipedia article is worded, not the preferences of the subject. (And if you look at any articles about "pro-life" groups which oppose abortion, you'll see them accurately described as being anti-abortion - because they quite plainly are.) -- Boing! said Zebedee / on Tour (talk) 12:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

So-called "mainstream psychology" has been corrupted. There is evidence that the APA has been corrupted, not only by sexual politics, but by money. From "Who's Behind the Bible of Mental Illness" by Kent Garber, which was in the Dec. 31, 2007/Jan. 7, 2008 issue of U.S. News & World Report (page 25): The "American Psychiatric Association will spend the next five years producing a new edition of...The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders....[It] is hugely influential because it determines what is and is not a mental disorder....The most recent edition of the DSM, published in 1994, drew controversy because it turned what had once been a thin guidebook into an 886-page tome that significantly expanded the definition of mental illness. Traits once associated with shyness, for example, became symptoms of 'social anxiety disorder.' And drug companies went on to spend millions promoting medicines for those problems. Eyebrows were further raised in 2006 when a study showed that more than half of the researchers who worked on the manual had at least one financial tie to the drug industry." That quote is on the HOME website also. The APA has little credibility. The APA used to have solid reasons to deem homosexuality a disorder (before it became corrupted by sexual politics).

As to the "anti-homosexuality" label, my group is also against sexual abuse, promiscuous sex, unsafe sex, heterophobia, etc., etc. (all that is easily deduced from the HOME website), but biased people only describe us as "anti-homosexuality." Why not drop the biased labels and just say HOME uses science, logic, and natural law to expose the flaws in all the arguments homosexuals use (etc.)? I don't really care how the mainstream media describe HOME. You don't think they are biased? C'mon. They are "reliable" to be biased. And who cares about "consensus"? If the consensus was that homosexuality was an immoral disorder, would it be objective and neutral to call homosexuals names like "queers"? Is Wikipedia driven by objectivity or (possibly biased) consensus? The SPLC is NOT a reliable source, it's biased. Labeling non-haters haters is not objective, whatever the "consensus." Wikipedia should forget about consensus and concentrate on being objective and neutral.Wnlela (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Wayne, do you mind if I ask you a personal question? (By all means tell me to bugger off - you have every right). I just wonder if you have ever actually known any homosexual people. And by that I mean close friends, perhaps family, people you've spent a lot of time with - caring everyday people, who have strong supporting families, have never been abused in their lives, and are just good and loving people? (Disclosure: I have, and do).
 * PS: Re: "Why not drop the biased labels and just say HOME uses science, logic, and natural law to expose the flaws in all the arguments homosexuals use" - That's because the balance of reliable sources does not support such a claim, and to say it in the Wikipedia article would be to endorse your bias. -- Boing! said Zebedee / on Tour (talk) 19:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * PPS: You say "Wikipedia should forget about consensus and concentrate on being objective and neutral". How does one gauge "objective and neutral" other than by consensus? Are we supposed to accept it means "What Wayne says"? -- Boing! said Zebedee / on Tour (talk) 19:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course I've known homosexuals, especially in college. But it's an irrelevant and silly question.

As to the second point, you could say "From HOME's perspective, it uses science, logic, and natural law to expose the flaws in all of the major arguments homosexuals use." See for support http://home60515.com/1.html. (And, incidentally, if you want to know more about the connection between sexual abuse and homosexuality you can go here http://home60515.com/3.html. Too many people are falling for absurd pro-homosexual propaganda and emotional manipulations.)

As to your third point, consensus obviously does not determine truth. There once was a consensus that the earth was flat. (Am I still blocked, while info biased against my group is still on Wikipedia?)Wnlela (talk) 05:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guessed you were going to find my question only worthy of dismissal.
 * I don't think even that is really a very encyclopedia statement, though I guess some sort of quote might be appropriate. But again, if that view is presented, the mainstream scientific view would also have to be presented - an encyclopedia should not present "Minority group X says..." without adding "But mainstream scientific thought says..." (Update: I see it actually is in the article, as a direct quotation, which doesn't seem unreasonable)
 * I repeat my question, which you did not answer - How does one gauge "objective and neutral" other than by consensus? Yes, consensus can be wrong, but at any one time it is all we really have to go on. Had there been a consensus that the Earth was flat during the lifetime of Wikipedia, then Wikipedia would have presented that consensus - because that's what encyclopedias do. What Wikipedia strives to do is represent the views of reliable sources, weighted according to their balance in the real world - if you want to change Wikipedia's presentation of a subject, you first need to change the real world balance.
 * Yes, you are still blocked, and you will remain so until you present an unblock request that convinces a reviewing admin that you will not repeat the actions that got you blocked.
 * Anyway, it's been interesting talking to you, but I doubt it's been of any real benefit - you don't appear to have learned anything about how encyclopedias work (though you might at least have learned that you cannot change the article into a propaganda piece for your organization), and I've only become more depressed at the amount of bigotry on show in our world. So I'll bid you goodbye. -- Boing! said Zebedee / on Tour (talk) 08:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)