Talk:Family Gay/Archive 1

Archive 1

Plot summary length

While I do find the rest of the article completely lacking, the plot summary is not too long. A Streetcar Named Marge is a featured article with a much longer plot section on a similar tv show. Take a look at Category:Wikipedia articles with plot summary needing attention. These articles have screenfulls of plot summary, not 3 short paragraphs. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a feature article with a much longer plot summary AND MUCH MORE NON PLOT content. "The plot summary in this article is too long or detailed compared to the rest of the content" Plot = 3 paragraphs, non plot content = 2 sentances. Notnotkenny (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC) (aka User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom)

Then the problem is not the plot but the rest of the article. Articles don't come fleshed out, it can often be a very slow process. But shrinking the sections that do exist into nothing will only make matters worse. The article is indeed heavily lacking in many departments, but shrinking the plot section will not fix this.--Odie5533 (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

So you agree that the tag is an appropriate description of the articles current condition?Notnotkenny (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC) (aka User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom)

In a literal sense, the plot section is indeed shorter than the rest of the article. But this does not warrant tagging. If anything, it should tagged as a stub. The tag is meant for articles with unusually long plot sections, not for shrinking the plot section on an already near-empty article. --Odie5533 (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

While I agree, in spirit, with much of your work this seems a bit wikilawyering-ish. The issue is not that the plot is too long the issue, as pointed out, is that the rest of the article is not developed. We are not robots that have to trim and grow plot only in accordance with a percentage compared to the whole. This is a reasonable plot summary as is and really would degrade the article if further forced to be excised. Thie entire article needs expansion but I also see no need to tag it such. I did tag it it for the one area that seems reasonable other editors should address, adding sourcing. Let the article develop more than a few days and see if concerns aren't met. -- Banjeboi 02:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Who said anything about needing to trim the plot? The tag just notes that the article is currently out of proportion. Rather than reading the tag as a call to cut plot, it can be read as a notice to editors that they should have a darn good reason for adding more to the plot section if you havent added appropriate non-plot material. Notnotkenny (talk) 02:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Do we really need to worry about this article being a few sentences too long in your opinion? There are no major issues with it as is, so why tag it? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi POV/COI

Resolved

 – Concerns and accusations raised, discussed and resolved. -- Banjeboi 01:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

• User:Benjiboi has repeatedly[1][2] gone against WP:MOSQUOTE even after I directed him to WP:MOSQUOTE in an edit summary.[3]
• Benjiboi has repeatedly[4][5] added the phrase "socially conservative group" referring to the Parents Television Council. Since the PTC refers to themselves as a nonpartisan group, this adds bias to the article. Again, I directed him to WP:NPOV in an edit summary[6] and even after I did, he added it back.
• Benjiboi has repeatedly[7][8][9] removed a line about L. Brent Bozell III citing WP:SOAP and WP:UNDUE. Yet as I said in the edit summary, 5 lines about a PTC complaint in an otherwise small article is not undue weight. I consider the line about L. Brent Bozell III to be important, possibly more so than the other lines, since he actually has a Wikipedia page and thus builds the web. I also requested that Benjiboi discuss the WP:UNDUE (WP:WEIGHT) removal on the talk page instead of simply removing content from a small article. Even after I suggested this, Benjiboi again removed the line.[10]

As can be seen on User:Benjiboi's user page, he appears to be a sort of gay activist. I believe he is intentionally introducing bias into the article, along with intentionally defaming PTC by adding the phrase "socially conservative group" to article despite the PTC's claim on their article to be nonpartisan. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

So what are you bitching about? They clearly are a conservative group, no mater what they say. The few sentences we have from them is more than enough. Or does my opinion not count, Odie, cause I'm gay too? We have one positive review, and one negative, how much more unbiased and even can it get? CTJF83Talk 21:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

If you believe the problem I pointed out is the sexual orientation of the editor then I suggest you re-read what I wrote. I will not succumb to such a tactic. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow. If the best reason you have to include this is that I have a POV, which we all do, or a COI - which I guess means your accusing me of ?, not sure what - then you just confirmed my pov might be spot on. That an extra sentence extolling PTC's hot air campaign against this episode and calling them, gasp, a "decency campaigning" group - per Time magazine seems in line with NPOV policies. I'm certainly open to better options but starting a thread directed at me seems like a bully tactic and those almost always fail in a collaborative environments. -- Banjeboi 01:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Please explain what specific point you are referring to. Decency campaigning group sounds fine to me. This article is not to complain about the PTC or call them names, but to report the controversy surrounding the Family Guy episode. Context is needed to understand where the PTC are coming from, but adding disputed proclamations like "socially conservative" create unneeded bias in place of helpful context. I started the thread directly at you because you were the one changing the article breaking policy. If someone else was changing the article breaking WP policy, this would have their name in the title, not yours. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Look at their wiki page. Three sources refer to them as socially conservative. Obviously we are gonna go for an outside source, not how the PTC labels themselves. CTJF83Talk 15:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe doing so, since it is disputed, introduces bias into the article. As Benjiboi suggested, "decency campaigning" sounds much more NPOV than accepting any of the disputed labels. And the entire list of labels they have been called is already on the PTC article (where it should be). Please read WP:ASF. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear here, you are the only one who disputes this is a conservative group. The LA Times[11], SF Chronicle[12] and Advertising Age[13] amongst others also call them conservative. -- Banjeboi 01:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not dispute it on any other grounds than that their own wikipedia page shows dispute. As I've already pointed Ctjf83 to, please read WP:ASF, part of the WP:NPOV policy. This is an encyclopedia, not your personal soapbox to jump up on and sling shit at everyone in sight. --Odie5533 (talk) 06:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

PTC is without question a group of social conservatives, and this is worth explaining to readers so they don't have to guess. The term decency campaigning group is novel to me and sounds euphemistic; I'd be okay with a more explicit term, like group which campaigns for censorship, or watchdog group whose letter-writing campaigns are believed to generate most of the indecency complaints received by the United States FCC.[14] [15]

I don't think L. Brent Bozell III meeds tp be identified separately when he is speaking on behalf of the organization—this adds verbosity and gives undue prominence to this one organization—but this is a smaller concern. The rest of the differences between the two wordings could go either way, so a compromise would be good here. / edg ☺ ☭ 02:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that it is without question. Have you read their Wikipedia page? I do, however, agree decency campaigning does not really explain them fully. Any of the phrases you've mentioned sound fine to me. The last one would require a good citation, though, or it would need to be asserted as opinion. --Odie5533 (talk) 06:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I included two citations, linked at the end. Here are the citations in detail:

• Shields, Todd (2004-12-06). "Activists Dominate Content Complaints". Mediaweek.com. Archived from the original on 2004-12-14. According to a new FCC estimate obtained by Mediaweek, nearly all indecency complaints in 2003—99.8 percent—were filed by the Parents Television Council, an activist group.
• Rice, Lynette (2007-05-02). "No S---! TV Execs, Uncensored". Entertainment Weekly. Entertainment Weekly and Time Inc. Retrieved 2007-06-19. [I]t's important to point out that indecency fines used to be rare. ... These complaints are not spontaneous. ... You have the Parents Television Council generating tens of thousands of e-mails, all counted as individual complaints. And they're the primary driver, along with a certain agenda in Washington, in terms of indecency as an issue now. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Can we agree on the 2nd wording then?

...(PTC), a watchdog group whose letter-writing campaigns are believed to generate most of the indecency complaints received by the United States Federal Communications Commission,^{[citations here]} filed an indecency complaint ...

Because of the length, it might be better (more readable) in parenthesis. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you spell WP:SYN - those sources have nothing to do with this article / episode. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

They wouldn't. They specifically describe the PTC, and are sources only for the above statement. To make this clear, I am inserting a marker above where these would be placed. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You are taking material from from 5 years ago and placing it in a way that comments on a recent event in such a way to to imply the two sourced items are connected. WP:SYN. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

An organization with a history of making indecency complaints is here making an indecency complaint. This seems relevant, and I don't see what else can be inferred. (Other than we needed a description for this organization.) Are you saying this organization can only be called such on Wikipedia articles where sources describe PTC this way somehow in relation to the article subject? Wouldn't the organization always be the same organization?

Also, small point, the material from 2007 is from less than "5 years ago". Are sources from this month absolutely required? Are sources that simultaneously describe the episode absolutely required when all that is being sourced here is a description of the organization? This seems kind of silly—if the President of the United States comments on this episode in a source that doesn't not mention his office, can we not identify the speaker as the President in the article, even though other sources can be found stating the speaker is President?

Forgive me for presuming, but I expect you will disagree with me further on this. Can I ask you how we should identify the PTC in this article for readers unfamiliar with the organization? I really thought we were agreeing on a solution until the WP:SYN concern was raised. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Identify them in an NPOV way. While the wording you've given is true from the sources you've provided, it does not explain what the PTC is. Instead, it adds bias to the article, making the PTC seem like fanatic prudes. How about a wording that says what the PTC is, instead of one aspect of what they do? A wording should provide context, not poison the well. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. While reminding me to assume good faith you might want to rethink statements like "not your personal soapbox to jump up on and sling shit at everyone in sight". Labels like decency campaigning and social conservatives certainly help explain what the PTC is. This is not a mainstream unbiased group, they are a part of the political and social culture wars and a good article would reference that as part of explaining what weight to give this "controversy". -- Banjeboi 01:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall reminding you to assume good faith. "Socially conservative group" does not explain who they are; it only falsely explains their views. Context should explain what the group is, and possibly some of their actual views. Political and social culture wars? ... Perhaps a good article on the PTC might reference it (provided they did so only in asserting the opinion of others), but I don't think such dribble is needed on a section about one of the PTC's actions. You are working too hard to add POV to the article. It really should be a short section about the controversy, and you and a few other editors are doing everything possible to add POV to it. Blogs exist for a reason, use them. Complain all about the PTC's socially conservative views on them. But please, leave your POV at the door. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Odie5533, who besides you and the PTC doesn't think they are a conservative? Do you have a reliable outside source from someone else that says they are unbiased? CTJF83Talk 00:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV and WP:OR. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there a Wikipedia policy on affixing political orientations to groups (not in their own article) when relevant? I've seen it before on articles here and elsewhere, and it must have been dealt with before. SultrySuzie (talk) 00:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe it needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis. For instance, saying that an openly conservative group is conservative seems reasonable, provided that doing so in extra articles explains the context of their affiliation with that subject. But in this case it only acts to poison the well and present them as a bunch of fanatic prudes. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I think WP:NPOV covers it well. We have reliable sources that a group found the show controversial and urged its members to complain. This same group is led by social conservatives and adheres to that general agenda. This same group has a long and well documented history of similar complaints and, arguably because of that, the "controversies" are somewhat ignored by mainstream media. Rather than create a soapbox here we are aiming to NPOV summarize their stated complaint in context and if their action goes anywhere we can add on as the issue progresses. The Family Guy articles get a lot of traffic and trivial filler so a number of editors try to trim the excess asap. -- Banjeboi 11:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

"social conservatives and adheres to that general agenda" You are attempting to poison the well on their complaint by presenting WP:OR/WP:SYN. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm done on this talk page. This is my last comment here. Good luck with the article Benjiboi. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.