Talk:Chick-fil-A/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Bias

There is a clear bias in the article that will need to be resolved. I tried to fix all at once so we can try to do it one at a time.

I have deleted the section on the Cancer Lawsuit. None of the other companies mentioned in the law suites have have any mention of the lawsuit. Why is chic-fil-a any different? Lets try to be consistent here. The law suite is not relevant to Chic-fil-a... More to comeMantion (talk) 10:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I have deleted the section entitled "‎Religious Discrimination". A company this size is going to have a lot of disgruntled employees, wiki does need to include information about one employee settling a case. The case didn't affect sales, the product, the labor practice. Its also very sad that based on one insignificant Lawsuit an entire section called "‎Religious Discrimination" should be created. If it were a lawsuit that affected operations or the company or a significant number of people I could see including it, but since it is so petty there is no need to mention it at all.Mantion (talk) 10:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

can we close the discussion here and bring it to a centralized point at Talk:Chick-fil-A#Edit_request_on_25_July_2012?

It's wikipedia and the internet, of course your going to get a lot of anti-religious and anti-right wing bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.116.238 (talk) 00:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is to adhere to a neutral point of view. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 13:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Effect of current controversy?

It seems to me that something that is missing from the article is the effect of the current controversy on the business. Is there an ongoing boycott from gays rights groups? Is it effective? Or is the controversy driving social conservatives to patronize their business? The reason I bring this up is that I drive past a Chick-fil-A every day and their drive-through has been so busy in the last week that cars are lined up out of their parking lot and into the main street blocking traffic - something I've never seen before in years of driving past it. Maybe this is an aberration, but if there is some notable effect of Chick-fil-A's business, this article should probably mention it. Edgeweyes (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The effect of the current controversy on the business has yet to be seen. Anecdotes about driving past a Chick-fil-A and seeing "cars are lined up out of their parking lot and into the main street blocking traffic" certainly don't mean that there has been some sort of larger effect. And even if it were, there would need to be a reputable source which describes said effect. MsFionnuala (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I clearly didn't intend my personal observation to be taken as something to be added to the article. That's why I was asking if there was a "notable effect" on the business. You replied, "The effect of the current controversy on the business has yet to be seen", but with all the news coverage I'd be surprised if that was actually true. 30 seconds at Google turns up many local news examples (After controversy, business booming at Huntsville Chick-fil-A, for example). But I'm wondering if there have been some more widespread observations. Edgeweyes (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I dunno. I've seen articles like the one you posted, articles saying the opposite, and articles saying that Cathy's statement was the worst business move they've ever seen. So I guess the jury's out. Oh, and FWIW, I just drove past the local CfA earlier today, and there were no cars in the parking lot.  ;) MsFionnuala (talk) 19:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like we should keep an eye out for more on this, but not write anything yet. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

What controversy? It's totally contrived. In fact, the section called "Controversy regarding LGBT issues" might better be renamed "Contrived controversy regarding LGBT issues". Read Mr. Cathy's statement, quoted in the section. He didn't attack anybody or anything; he merely reiterated the company values and beliefs of its owners. He didn't even mention lesbians, gays, bisexuals or transsexuals/transvestites in his statement. I'm thinking the entire "controversy" section should be deleted or broken out as a separate article, as it has become an attractive nuisance for every crank with an ax to grind. That is not the purpose of an encyclopedia, let alone Wikipedia. — Quicksilver^{T @} 10:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Stirred up, maybe yes; but "contrived", no. See debate on thread "Pro family, anti-gay" above. Alfietucker (talk) 13:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The lines at our local shoppe in Columbus, the 2nd largest gay community in the US, was 2.5 hours long and wrapped around the building twice. This is mirrored all across the country too..It's clearly showing that a ~lot~ of people support their pro-family stance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.116.238 (talk) 00:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I would not be so eager to jump on the "pro-family aka anti-gay marriage" bandwagon. I went today to support Free Speech. As did many others. Whether his comments were right or wrong, no one should be punished for sharing their opinion. We allow that, there will be no stopping the censoring of Americans.--Mt6617 (talk) 03:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

NPR Discussion

Coincidentally I heard this a few hours ago Tell Me More. A little PoV'ish, but worth a listen. Fasttimes68 (talk) 19:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I heard it this morning, too. National coverage of the National Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day on Aug. 1 by a RS seems like this warrants mention in the article. 72Dino (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

As long as we balance it with a mention of the "Kiss Mor Chiks" scheduled for August 3, also mentioned by a RS. MsFionnuala (talk) 15:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that was mentioned in the same NPR broadcast. Not that this article is particularly well-balanced now, but both events should be mentioned because they are both receiving national attention. 72Dino (talk) 15:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

So before we put both of them in the article, let's consider if they are truly notable in the encyclopedic sense. As mentioned earlier on this talk page, the article suffers from recentism, and let's make sure we're not throwing more stuff in which is only going to be removed in a week or two. This section is already suffering from bloat. MsFionnuala (talk) 15:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

We can link to it for external references (and Kiss Mor Chiks) and not even put the content in the article. I only pointed this interview out as Michelle Martin amuses me the way she deals with POV pushers. She would make a good AgF editor :) Fasttimes68 (talk) 17:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

PCHS-NJROTC, who also happens to be a member of Conservapedia, added a picture with the POV caption "Supporters of Chick-Fil-A lined up to patronize the local franchise on Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day to show their support for the company and their policies." First, such a caption doesn't belong on the page. Second, the day as well as the opposing day are being discussed here. I reverted the edits. I don't think that picture belongs here, unless we are also going to go out and take a picture of two women kissing at Chick-fil-A on Friday and put that on the page as well. MsFionnuala (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not endorsing any edits, but let's not descend into ad hominem arguments please. Belchfire-TALK 18:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

My point was the POV-ness of the edit. Wasn't intended to be a personal attack on the editor... my apologies. MsFionnuala (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Ad hominem arguments are by definition a personal attack. Fasttimes68 (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. An ad hominem argument is one that attempts to refute a point of view by arguing against the person who holds it, instead of the point of view itself. It's not necessarily a personal attack. (Although it can be a personal attack in some cases, that's not what happened here.) Here we have MsFionnuala attempting to discredit another editor by pointing out he is a member of Conservapedia, instead of speaking directly to anything he said. She says she wanted to draw attention to what she saw as a problem with an edit - which is a legitimate goal - but instead of arguing against the edit itself, she argues against the identity of the editor. That is textbook ad hominem, but not really an instance of interpersonal nastiness. Belchfire-TALK 01:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I made a mistake there... my bad. I ought to know better. Feel free to trout me. MsFionnuala (talk) 02:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Evaluating content for inclusion is not tit for tat. We don't add lesbian kissing merely to cancel out Christians fighting valiantly for their 1st Amendment rights. We cover topics based on proportion of coverage in RS per WP:DUE. And right now Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day has turned into a national phenomenon and Chick-a-Fil has become to Christians what The Alamo is to Texans. The coverage is extensive. Of course it should be included. Coverage of the anti-traditional marriage protest is practically nonexistent--and anyway it's doubtful that their event will be able to match the Christian juggernaut. – Lionel ^(talk) 02:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Certainly not tit for tat. Now what do the sources say? Fasttimes68 (talk) 03:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

So when do we include the economic boon Chickfilet has recieved from all of this controversy? Do we wait for them to come out with a statement, or do we wait until they announce their quarterly earnings? HappyHippo69 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The recently created article Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, whilst sourced, does not really merit an article to iself (given that the subject is irrevocably tied to the Chick-fil-A LGBT controversy.) I propose merging the content of that article to this one. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, a two-sentence article about a one-time event is looking a little lonesome and vulnerable out there all by itself.

Suggest this procedure...

1. Expand the content some. I know you can do it.
2. Create a new section in the main CfA article and copy the material into it.
3. Store the article temporarily in a user page (e.g., an extra sandbox), for safe-keeping.
4. Request speedy deletion before somebody else does.

Belchfire-TALK 08:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

What? Merge? Stop! I had high hopes of getting another DYK out of this article! – Lionel ^(talk) 08:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, I think Belchfire has made a very sensible suggestion here. Alfietucker (talk) 09:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't understand why there was nothing in the main article, at least where I looked. So I support it. I was all set to add information to the main article anyway.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 13:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm being bold here, as I've seen nothing on either the CfAAD talk page or here to indicate any support for leaving the page as is. See you here. MsFionnuala (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I got an edit conflict. As is often the case, what's there looks better than what I did. I may still try to add something because there's an important quote and an important statistic.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 13:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. The quote is in the headline and the statistic is there after all.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 13:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I was going to vote in favor of the merger at the AfD, but I was E/Ced by the closing administrator. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 14:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. The merger had already been done by the time the AfD started; I speedy closed it so as to create the redirect (as is conventional with a merge of this type), since it looked as though it was going to be a SNOW vote anyway. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Everybody take a breath.

I just read through this article, talk page and relevant discussions and I think everyone needs to take a nice deep breath. There you go. No, not deep enough. Deeper. Deeeeeeeeper. Good. Okay. There's a few things to point out at this moment.

1. If you, personally, have strong views about a subject, and it is affecting your ability to maintain a Neutral point of view, you should go and read another article. I personally suggest butterflies because it makes me feel better just to read through it. You can also supplement this with a google image search for "cute kittens".
2. Removing badly-sourced and unsourced statements does not go against WP:NPOV.
3. If you feel the need to try and 'sneak' in a political agenda into a Wikipedia article, then perhaps you might want to consider how that affects your personal integrity and the integrity of Wikipedia as a whole.
4. I have gone through the references and the controversy section to try and restore a NPOV. I would appreciate your comments on my proposed edits (which are admittedly rather minor and involve little more than some tweaks in word-use and removal of weasel words, available here for your reading pleasure.

~ PonyToast...§ 18:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't breath. I have gills that enable bodily respiration provided I put enough of my POV in Wikipedia articles. HappyHippo69 (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You are a hippo not a fish. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

And a very astute hippo at that, considering their first post ever was to AfD. Fasttimes68 (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I am a pan-animalist. I don't like to be constrained by such bigoted pidgeonholes like 'hippo' or 'fish.' Or 'happy.' HappyHippo69 (talk) 22:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

What might make it easier to look at would be if you took the original content and pasted it into your sandbox article, saved it, then took put your modified version back, so we can see the changes. MsFionnuala (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Ooh, I neve rthought of that. Done. Hopefully that helps. ~ PonyToast...§ 19:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

We really need to come up with a 2-3 sentence neutral paragraph about the same-sex marriage debate for the main Chick-Fil-A page, and move everything else over to the page dedicated to the controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BooDog (talk • contribs) 23:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Ownership

I hope this isn't too far off-topic, as it has nothing to do with gay rights or gay bashing or with politics - only a question about restaurant ownership. Early in the article is the assertion that their business model is different in their policy of "...retaining ownership of each restaurant." Later, under the Corporate Culture section, is a reference to "All Chick-fil-A locations (company-owned and franchised,...).

Are all the restaurants company owned, or are they franchised? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.99.161 (talk) 00:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

POVFORK

An attempt is underway to boldly spin-off the LGBT Controversy section into it's own article, without discussion. This is against the relevant policy (WP:POVFORK) on forks. The new article has been nominated for deletion, discussion and voting is HERE. Belchfire-TALK 04:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

As long as there are tags saying the article is too slanted toward recent events and has a POV problem, the article seems like a good idea. If the new one gets deleted, how do we solve the problems?— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

If it seems like a good idea, feel free to go vote "Keep". To me, it seems to be a violation of a non-flexible Wikipedia policy. And I note once again, this fork was attempted with no discussion whatsoever. Belchfire-TALK 18:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Controversy section summarized

Per the concerns about WP:RECENT, I have kept all the references but reduced this to three paragraphs per WP:SUMMARY. Anyone wanting more detail can visit the main article. This was way too much detail, per WP:UNDUE. Comments welcome. Jokestress (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The summary section now is difficult to read IMO, with all the references and wikilinks in there. The section has around 330 words, and 37 references. I appreciate that you're trying to keep references that editors (myself among them) have worked hard over the past two weeks or so, but I think they need to be cut back. I think the section can still be cut further back, especially the second paragraph, which reads like a list of bullet points. MsFionnuala (talk) 01:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd do it myself, but frankly I'm tired of working on this article. :) MsFionnuala (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I just combined them into bulleted refs and tightened all the politician responses. The main issue there is the proposed bans, which many experts say are unconstitutional. We don't need to list every person who disapproves, just the ones who proposed punitive measures. I may tighten up the Henson part, too. It is discussed in detail at the main article. If you want to remove any of the bulleted references and just use the most major ones, that's fine, but I think it's OK to have them here. Jokestress (talk) 02:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Not too bad

Considering the controversial undertones, the article feels neutral while touching on all the hot spots. Nice work everyone. Fasttimes68 (talk) 02:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, with particular thanks to Jokestress. It may be fine even if the standalone article is deleted, which looks likely. 72Dino (talk) 02:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a great edit to that section. Not a whiff of POV. Fasttimes68 (talk) 02:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Nicely done indeed. Does anyone dispute the current NPOV? If enough feel that this section is now acceptable, we can pull the tag...and we all know how good pulling an NPOV tag makes you feel! ~ PonyToast...§ 13:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather that then pulling someone's finger... And I would hold off just yet... See the section below. Fasttimes68 (talk) 13:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Anti-gay vs. pro-traditional marriage statement.

In this diff [1] User:Barbula changed " In July 2012, Chick-fil-A Dan Cathy made several public statements opposing same-sex marriage" to "In July 2012, Chick-fil-A Dan Cathy made several public statements supporting traditional marriage". I reverted what I saw was a POV edit that mischaracterised the sources, notably the NYT's article title that Is Chick-fil-A anti-gay marriage? 'Guilty as charged,' leader says. User:Belchfire reverted my reversion claiming POV edits. He proceeds to EW on this item without discussion, and has without evidence, accused others of bias. I restored the edit so we can get to the "D" in BRD, however User:Arzel has reverted my edit with the cryptic summary That is not how that went down. So what is your opinion of what the sources say regarding Cathy's statements? Can this be reworded? Fasttimes68 (talk) 13:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Well I agree that two out of the three citations explicitly say that Cathy was attacking same-sex marriage: on the other hand there's now a quotation from one of those interviews - highly relevant as it was referred to by the Mayor of Boston - which I've included in the article to clarify what is meant by "supporting traditional marriage". So I'm not sure that we need say that Cathy's statements were "opposing same-sex marriage" as this is arguably over-simplifying the issue, implying that all his statements were explicit attacks (which is not to say that his "supporting traditional marriage" by the definition he's using isn't implicitly in opposition to same-sex marriage, which it unquestionably is - hence the necessity of that quote IMHO). Alfietucker (talk) 13:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I find one of Fasttimes' comments on this discovery of his to be particularly informative: "I read the fucking title of the articles." Apparently, this is what passes for due diligence as he peruses Wikipedia articles looking for things to edit. But what he, and other editors so inclined, need to remember is that this section of the article has already been litigated and re-litigated word-by-word. He should understand that he needs a pretty strong case to get away with a two word change that alters the whole meaning of the paragraph. He doesn't have one. Belchfire-TALK 15:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

We can't use a non-neutral phrase [ed. in WP's voice] simply because it is the phrase the person being quoted used. If we wish to use the wording because it was the wording Cathy or the interviewer used, we must use quotation marks, the way we would for any other quote. "Traditional marriage" is a propaganda phrase used by opponents of LGBT rights, not a neutral, encyclopedic phrase. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Without offering any opinion on what those two words ought to be, I honestly don't think "anti-gay marriage" or "pro-traditional marriage" alters the meaning of the paragraph. The two phrases in today's vernacular are equivalent, much the same as "pro-life" and "anti-abortion" essentially mean the same thing. Whatever two words y'all decide are appropriate there, the meaning of the paragraph remains the same. Frankly, I don't see why either needs to be in there. Neither one is NPOV, and since no one, after over a week of batting this around, seems to be able to agree, just get rid of the two words altogether. Put something like "... Cathy made several public statements concerning marriage, saying that ..." MsFionnuala (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Huh, guess I did end up offering an opinion. Funny, that. MsFionnuala (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagreed with the interpretation of what the sources state, nothing more. Belchfire proceeds to EW without discussing and accuse others of bias. This is troublesome behavior. Fasttimes68 (talk) 15:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Setting aside for the moment your confusion about what is non-neutral, Roscelese, let me make sure I understand your point correctly. You argue against using the man's actual words, opting instead for the sources' editorial interpretation, on the grounds that quote marks were omitted (which is faulty, by the way, because of WP:BADEMPHASIS). Instead, you prefer to take a narrow slice from his broader position, no doubt placing it in the article with no quotation marks, and you lecture us about propaganda? Seriously?

I don't know what to say, besides "LOL". Belchfire-TALK 15:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire, you appear to be misrepresenting (whether you mean to or not) Roscelese's position - certainly as stated on this thread. He did not "argue against using the man's actual words" but insisted that if we did so we put them in quote marks. This is perfectly sensible and necessary if we are to going to be NPOV. Alfietucker (talk) 16:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Yup. On the off chance anyone actually misinterpreted my comment instead of just deciding to be difficult, I've added a clarification. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Being fairly inexperienced at this and an occasional editor I hope that what I interject won't serve only to exacerbate the discussion. There's been quite a bit written about the term "traditional marriage" like this and it is safe to say that it is, relatively speaking, a recent term and one attributed to Christians. 50 years ago "traditional marriage" excluded mixed race marriages in many states based on a Biblical argument. "Traditional marriage" was not the term used in the citation, so it's hard to see this usage as anything but a political construct. Shouldn't quotes around the term actually used suffice to defuse any POV issue? Vttor (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Good grief. If you're going to accuse me of AGF failure, at least use good faith in doing it. Ros' clarification is helpful, but the edit speaks much louder. I agree with the edit, and endorse it, but it simply wasn't what I was expecting based on my good faith interpretation of remarks made here in Talk. Mind you, Ros said the wording (at that time) was non-neutral - a clear signal that he intended, or would prefer, to change it. Instead, he not only added quotation marks, but also altered the nearby wording just slightly, to make it clear that the words belong to Cathy. That's a legitimate, necessary change that we should all be able to agree with. A little clarity goes a long way, Ros, especially if you're fixin' to do a little "writing for the enemy". Just sayin'. Belchfire-TALK 17:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Your insinuations of editor bias without evidence are trollish and unhelpful. Please stop. Fasttimes68 (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Since every editor is a product of whom he or she has experienced, insinuating that an editor has a bias is no more trollish than assuming s/he is human. It's also why Hippos should do all Wikipedia work. HappyHippo69 (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It is important for our readers to understand how Cathy describes himself--it is sourced--we can of course elaborate. I wonder if this dispute is just an objection to the Christian appropriation of the word "traditional." If it is, get over it. – Lionel ^(talk) 20:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Recentism tag is justified.

My two cents: The Recentism tag is justified. The sections "Religious and political views" and "Controversy regarding LGBT issues" should be removed and held in abeyance until such time as the current controversy cools down. At that time, the deleted material can be re-evaluated and edited so that it fits in with the goal of creating a proper encyclopedic article, eliminated permanently as being irrelevant to an encyclopedic article on Chick-fil-A, or moved to another article on issues concerning the LGBT (BLGTQ) community.

The controversy is white hot. Emotions are running high. The material in question does not fit the requirement of encyclopedic quality any more than similarly detailed material which is added every day to any number of articles by people who are offended or outraged (for whatever reason) and want to have their grievances heard and understood. This kind of material is deleted often by editors who coolly evaluate the material and modify it or delete it for the betterment of the article.

Perhaps those who feel the need to "get the material out there" could navigate over to the WikiNews portion of the empire and work on creating news articles giving full and conscientious consideration to that project's guidelines demanding journalistic accuracy and integrity. NorthCoastReader (talk) 04:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Because CFA is in the news over this issue, readers will come here expecting it to be summarized. There is no doubt that the material is significant enough that it will remain in the article in the long term, although I'm sure we'll find ways to refactor and compact it as needed. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Still-24 here. Shall we also stop adding content to other articles which are controversial and/or in the news? The recentism tag is a reminder to us all to go back over the article content once things have died down. Neither I nor NorthCoastReader nor anyone has the perspective to say that this piece or that bit won't be notable in the future. We've already had this discussion above... scroll up. I think the current "core group" of editors on this page are doing a decent job of not letting things get out of control. MsFionnuala (talk) 10:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a gentle reminder... WP:NOTNEWS. We should be providing background and context, not up-to-the-minute information. As I explained the other day, if we find that we lack perspective to know if something should be added, we have our answer right there: it shouldn't be added until notability and relevance have been established. Belchfire-TALK 10:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, sure, but NorthCoastReader is talking about removing the section altogether, which is a tad drastic. Killing an ant with a sledgehammer IMO. MsFionnuala (talk) 12:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Tag is justified. Removing the sections are not. Fasttimes68 (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm seeing a pretty clear consensus here to keep the sections and the tag. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

In my original post, above, I proposed one possible way of approaching the problem of Recentism, re: CfA. And while I thought that such an approach was a good way of proceeding at the time (and still consider it an acceptable option), I have read and considered the comments made by the various editors since that time and have come to appreciate the viability of their proposed alternatives - especially if, as MsFionnuala and Still-24-45-42-125 suggest, enough editors will remain, after the dust settles, to come back to the article and refine it to the extent necessary to fine-tune the article and maintain its quality. Thanks to all of you for your opinions and your civility. I appreciate them. NorthCoastReader (talk) 01:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Gay activism and vandalism by protester

Today a Chick-fil-A restaurant, an important and respected institution in the city of Torrance CA, was wantonly vandalized by law breaking criminals. Our article must document the persecution of Chick-fil-A restauranteurs by out of control militant gay activists.– Lionel ^(talk) 20:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? Yes, there are a few Fasttimes68 (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you keep your comments on the talk page neutrally phrased? This appears designed to provoke. a13ean (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Are we sure this is notable? So far, it's just a single event at a single restaurant. I think it bears watching and should be added if this becomes a pattern, but I'm not sure that an isolated event deserves encyclopedic mention. Belchfire-TALK 20:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

HuffPost has interviewed the vandal. . Not sure where (or if) to put this. Also I changed the UNDUE title of this section

I'd say it goes in Left-wing politics. Just a thought. Belchfire-TALK 20:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, ye olde ad-hominem. Carry on. Fasttimes68 (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

You're right, I suppose he could be a TEA Party member, eh? LOL. You asked where it should go, I offered a suggestion. Belchfire-TALK 20:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, perhaps a User:Viriditas/Left-wing politics and violence should be created to go along with User:Viriditas/Right-wing politics and violence. Back to the original question, this certainly seems like an important reaction to the controversy and should be included here (and not included in a completely inappropriate article listing any violent action related to a member of a certain ideology). Ryan Vesey 20:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia needs to use some restraint on this. The article got 58K hits on the August 1, and 99K yesterday. If we slap this up there carelessly, Wikipedia may contribute towards a wave of this sort of thing. Wikipedia shouldn't be in the business of creating notability, and if there isn't widespread news coverage of this event, that's exactly what we're doing. Belchfire-TALK 20:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

If this belongs anywhere, which is highly debatable seeing as it is a single isolated incident at this point, it belongs in 2012 Chick-fil-A same-sex marriage controversy, not in this article. MsFionnuala (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

This is part of a much, much larger story about gay militant activism. Christians Say Chick-fil-A Under Siege by Militant Gays.– Lionel ^(talk) 21:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

So Sayeth The Fake News, Therefore It Must Be True. Oh wait, this is the same bigoted, racist media outlet that claimed Obama "desecrated the Oval Office" by "being the first president to put his feet up on the desk"... too bad there are numerous pics of George Dumbya Shrub doing the same thing in his anointed reign for the neanderthal right.

Ok, well, if it's truly part of a "much, much larger" story, it *certainly* doesn't belong here. Thank you for proving my point. I'd suggest that you go write a separate article about it and submit it for review. MsFionnuala (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Do I feel an idea for an AfC here? Gay militant violence, anyone? Belchfire-TALK 21:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as there's already an article on Christian terrorism, sure, why not? MsFionnuala (talk) 21:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Lionel, we can add a link to the FOX piece here, but we should keep any text additions to a minimum. Feel free to add details at 2012 Chick-fil-A same-sex marriage controversy, but I have been trying to cull this down to the basic here because the section on this controversy was about half of the article. Belchfire, you should make that article, but this probably won't be included. Vandalism is generally not considered violence. Jokestress (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

That depends entirely on who's committing the vandalism, and who's reporting on it. This example comes to mind. As a blanket statement, your assertion is categorically false. But we're straying off-topic. I'll concede that simple graffiti is not normally considered violent, but when it's motivated by hatred, it's bumping the line. Belchfire-TALK 21:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Arson is generally considered violence. Graffiti isn't. Looking forward to reading your article on gay militant violence. Jokestress (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

"taste the hate"? Do you expect to have your views taken seriously when you engage in that sort childish nonsense? I'm actually giving the article idea some consideration. I think it might be a useful and instructive experiment in Wiki dynamics. Put the Cabal on alert. Belchfire-TALK 21:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't say I never threw the dog a bone. Fasttimes68 (talk) 21:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

No amount of sourcing will get Gay militant violence past the cabal at the inevitable AFD. But if it does I think I deserve an honorary mention in the DYK credit. – Lionel ^(talk) 22:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The article is already being built, so I guess we'll just see about that. I'll bet you a Chick-fil-A chicken sammie I can get it done. I'll let you write the DYK nom, how 'bout that? Belchfire-TALK 23:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

LOL. If I lose the bet I still want the sammie anyway. – Lionel ^(talk) 02:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

No joke. I don't care what people think of Cathy and crew, but that is some seriously delicious tasting chicken. Fasttimes68 (talk) 13:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

POI. The perpetrator may have a larger agenda than the purported activism that he self reported at HuffPo. As it happens he has a show of his work that opens today in LA. I don't think, given the press so far, that it's not unlikely that a Free Speech/artistic expression argument is in the offing. Vttor (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

As soon as I saw the HuffPo piece, the underlying truth was transparently obvious. Can we say "opportunistic publicity stunt"? Again, I don't think we should lend a hand with that. Let Huffington do the whoring, if they want to. Belchfire-TALK 18:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. PR scam is PR scam. In any case, shouldn't these discussions be happening at 2012 Chick-fil-A same-sex marriage controversy instead? Fasttimes68 (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

We're starting to have all the same discussions over there that we had here last week. *sigh* MsFionnuala (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

That's just yet another argument against forking. Thanks. Belchfire-TALK 22:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we should make a new fork. Hippo-land's national motto is Third Time's the Charm. HappyHippo69 (talk) 22:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Biased coverage

A line about Mike Huckabee's bigoted "chick-fil-a appreciation day", but no reporting of the Kiss-In protests two days later? Here's your source. http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/03/us/chick-fil-a-kiss-day/index.html

Get to work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.86.32 (talk) 03:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Or am I to assume that people kissing other people are "out of control militant gay activists"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.86.32 (talk) 03:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we have your answer right here:

About 14,400 people had expressed their support on a Facebook page dedicated to Friday's protest, a tally dwarfed by those who went to Facebook to back Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day.

One event was notable, the other wasn't. Belchfire-TALK 03:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, both events are notable. However they aren't equally notable. CfA appreciation day would need to be expanded to satisfy WP:UNDUE if the "kiss in" were to be added. Fasttimes68 (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The cnn article is fine for citing this content. Another editor already added it to the article.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

@fasttimes Undue doesn't require us to add additional coverage of one event in order to mention another. It simply requires that we don't represent two views as equally supported, when one is more significant in the literature. We already have 3 sentences devoted to the appreciation day, and one for a short mention of the kiss day. That seems fine.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. I wasn't aware the kiss in was added already, and I was also under the impression CfA day just had a short blurb. Nothing left to do here & thanks Fasttimes68 (talk) 04:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Should the tags on Controversy section still be there?

I notice that Belchfire has just reverted the "recentism" tag removal by another editor, saying that it "needs to stay until the issues are resolved". Perhaps it would be useful to recap these issues now, so we know what they are - they're not entirely clear to me. It seems to me that while there was consensus late in July that the tag was justified, it seems to me that this has been pretty much resolved by the trimming done by Jokestress - see earlier thread Not too bad where editors have commented on her excellent work, which also seems to me to have obviated the need for the "POV" tag. Or again is there some issue I've overlooked here? Alfietucker (talk) 23:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

This article is about a 66 year old company. Almost 25% of the the article is about events that have taken place in the last 19 months, and most of the controversy is actually only 2-3 weeks old. That is "slanted towards recent events" by any reasonable standard. Progress has been made, but there is work left to be done and it's too soon to pull the tag, IMO. Belchfire-TALK 23:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough about "recentism" - until the dust settles, I guess. What about POV? Are there specific issues still to be addressed from, erm, that POV? Alfietucker (talk) 23:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The glaring POV issue that remains, in my eyes, is that we're still making the logical error of saying "pro-traditional marriage" equals "anti-gay", despite the target organizations' statements to the contrary. And we're allowing SPLC to be the first, last and final arbiter of what constitutes a "hate group" (a fictional construct invented for valid reasons, but which is now abused for political purposes, much as we see here). Both statements are value-driven, editorial assessments and neither belongs in a neutral, encyclopedic article that purports to give only facts. Who the hell made the SPLC our national conscious? Belchfire-TALK 23:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't answer the question as to who the hell made SPLC our national "conscious" (sic), but it sounds to me like you're getting a little emotional about this. Perhaps it'd be best to step back for a bit. Or, refocus your anger towards the SPLC in the Hate group article, where they are used as a source. An editor cannot just decide that they're not a valid arbiter of hate groups just because he or she doesn't agree with their choice of groups. As far as pro-traditional-marriage vs. anti-gay, the use of the euphemism does not help explain why the controversy exists. If the organizations spent all their time helping straight couples instead of evangelizing against same-sex marriage, there would be no controversy. But there is. And it is because the organizations are anti-gay marriage. MsFionnuala (talk) 00:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

You're setting up a straw man. I was asked why I reverted the tag removal; I gave my response. Attempting to impute an emotional overreaction to me is just a way of trying to discredit my reasoning without actually responding to it. This articles makes a judgment in Wikipedia's voice that CfA has given money to "anti-gay political organizations". That's a POV issue. This article relies on the SPLC to tell us who is a hate group, and portrays their finding as empirical fact, as if such a thing can be measured with a yard stick. That's a POV issue. I ask again: Why should SPLC be a trusted authority, and who put them in charge of the hate group list? I think that's a fair question if this encyclopedia is going to take their word as Gospel. Belchfire-TALK 00:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it was the way you said it, cursing and such. It seemed emotional; if it wasn't, well, I'll take your word for it. Like I said about SPLC, they are used elsewhere as a source when it comes to hate groups because in this country, they are the ones who do that. I have neither the time nor the inclination to go research the history of SPLC and why they came to be recognized as such, but they are, so deal with it. If you want to, go out and find neutral sources that refute their worthiness as an arbiter, and post them here, and in the Hate group article. You can also take it up with the FBI, who lists them on their website as a resource on the "Hate Crimes" page. MsFionnuala (talk) 01:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

We can look at this another way. As far as anybody can tell when reading this article, the only reason SPLC matters is because somebody at Huffington Post thinks it matters. Again, this is a POV issue. Belchfire-TALK 01:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Would it help if I changed the reference to the Washington Times? They also reported that SPLC labeled FRC as a hate group. MsFionnuala (talk) 01:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The FBI also identifies hate groups. Did they also list FRC as a hate group, or was that just the opinion of the SPLC? 72Dino (talk) 01:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I actually took a look at that when I mentioned them above, anticipating that question. I didn't find evidence that the FBI maintains a public list of hate groups. Their website talks about investigation of hate crimes, but I didn't find anything that looked like a list of groups. MsFionnuala (talk) 01:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I also did a search on their website. The usual suspects (Ku Klux Klan, Westboro Baptist Church, etc.) had multiple hits. There were no results for the Family Research Council. 72Dino (talk) 01:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Um, ok. I'm not sure what you mean by "did a search." I'd guess that a group that would come back in an amorphous "search" would be one which is on the FBI's radar; IOW, is suspected of/has committed/etc. crimes. I don't think anyone is accusing the FRC of being criminal. MsFionnuala (talk) 01:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I meant I used the search feature on the FBI website. I'm just saying that apparently that the only other organization (and the one most reliable) that I know of that identifies hate groups does not consider the FRC one, even using the SPLC as a resource. Just putting in my 2 cents regarding this designation. 72Dino (talk) 01:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Can you point me to the place where they list the hate groups they've identified? I must have missed it, thanks. MsFionnuala (talk) 01:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

That is why I had to use the search feature for individual groups, because neither of us was able to find a list. Anyway, that was all the input I had. 72Dino (talk) 02:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Looking at our own article on hate groups that MsFionnuala referenced, I fail to see how FRC could qualify: "A hate group is an organized group or movement that advocates and practices hatred, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or other designated sector of society." But FRC is purely a political organization; it has never been accused of any violent act, and is guilty only of holding a set of non-approved political beliefs. Clearly, SPLC has its own standard. Just as clearly, what I said earlier is exactly right: "hate group" in this context is a fictional construct being exploited for political purposes. SPLC is nothing but a pressure group, and is not entitled to make this judgment on behalf of Wikipedia. Belchfire-TALK 02:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

While there are extremist conservatives who think SPLC is a hate group, the rest of the world considers it a reliable source. This includes the FBI, which relies on its ratings. This is going to be yet another topic where your personal opinion has to move out of the way and let our reliable sources speak. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Forbes article re: the "cult" of Chick-fil-A

This article from Forbes talks about what it calls the "cult" of Chick-fil-A, as well as the fact that the company has been sued 12 times for employment discrimination in the past despite an interviewing process (some candidates go through up to 17 interviews!!) designed to produce a very specific type of employee with a specific set of values. Rather than adding this into the article, I am heading off the inevitable discussion about it at the pass and am soliciting thoughts. I feel that it merits inclusion in the article because it seems to go against the statement from CfA's website about their culture, which we quote in the article. I think the fact that the article is five years old is actually a good thing in this case, as it is obviously not a reaction to the recent controversy. MsFionnuala (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Only twelve lawsuits in nine years for an organization of that size actually looks pretty good. I'm not a huge fan of Forbes (they've become a little tabloidish to me), but this article may also be used as a source for expanding other sections of the article on the business aspects. That could be very helpful with the undue section at the end. 72Dino (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I kind of think that over one employment-related lawsuit per year for 9 years is a lot, and probably indicative of something about the culture of the company. I think 12 complaints to the EEOC would not be too many, but we're not talking about complaints, we're talking about actions in court. To be certain, this is just my opinion. I wonder how often companies get sued for this sort of thing in general, and what constitutes "a lot." OR, anyone? ;) MsFionnuala (talk) 11:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll be happy to research this area more, but this source (with supporting footnotes) near the top of a Google search states that 6 out of 10 employers have been sued by employees during the preceding 5 years. Before we put this in the article to make it sound like there is a culture problem, we need to determine if CfA's experience is within the norms of the industry. 72Dino (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

i dont know that the lawsuits are particularly indicative of anything - but the review of the corporate culture probably is. (the high number of interview screenings is discussed re franchisees and leadership positions, not run of the mill line employees which is where the lawsuits are coming from, i would bet. and we would need a third party to specifically analyze "the number of lawsuits despite heavy cultural fit screenings" angle ) -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

They might not, but  Looks like a duck to me. Anyway, and I am more than willing to admit that my interpretation of this might be way off, and please correct me if that's the case, but this source lists the number of EEOC suits filed and resolved over the past ten years. Typically there are anywhere from 300 to 500 a year. This page indicates there are around 27 million businesses in the United States. For one particular company to get sued more than once a year seems like an awful lot. To be certain, we don't know if these were "EEOC suits" or not. And also, the numbers I pointed out above don't jive with the 6 out of 10 that 72Dino pointed out above. I will keep poking around when I have the time. MsFionnuala (talk) 16:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I concur. Any research I may do (time permitting) regarding industry averages could only be used on the talk page to determine notability to avoid WP:SYNTH in the article unless a reliable source has done the analysis specifically on CfA. 72Dino (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, here is an article posted on the University of Washington website comparing the 40 percent employee turnover rate at CfA compared to the 300 percent turnover rate in the fast food industry as a whole. 72Dino (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen statistics like that; even lower ones, in fact. There was some quote in the Forbes article by one of the CfA higher-ups saying something like if a candidate didn't want to work here forever, this probably wasn't the right place for him or her. (paraphrasing) MsFionnuala (talk) 01:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

GLBT discrimination?

Can anyone provide any references to GLBT discrimination by this company? - ie. refusal of service or employment? 75.224.92.20 (talk) 09:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

There was none. The woman who filed a suit against Chick-fil-A sued for gender discrimination. If she was a lesbian, it just happened to be a coincidence. You can see the suit here [2] This is an action for gender discrimination pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964), as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Also they did not discriminate against customers either and there isn't proof of that anyways. They are a fast food restaurant which they have many employees so if there was a policy to discriminate against gay, lesbians, transgenders, etc, we'd know about it. The controversy centers around the fact that the head of the company supports efforts against the legalization of gay marriage. ViriiK (talk) 01:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

That's misleading. The controversy is over its overall support for social conservatism, which includes the notion that women should not be employed outside the home. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Really? I think the controversy has a much narrower scope. People didn't get fired up about Dan Cathy's opinions on abortion, or gun control, or the death penalty. They got fired up because of his comments on gay marriage. MsFionnuala (talk) 02:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, the anti-gay stuff drew the attention, but then it became clear that it's part of a larger pattern, both in terms of how they run the business and in how they contribute to the religious right. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Pro-family, anti-gay

I was forced to revert http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chick-fil-A&diff=504871622&oldid=504863841 because it violates WP:NPOV. We can't use the primary source's self-descriptions when they conflict with our secondary sources. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect, and your reasoning is a phony construct. This wording has already been discussed and agreed upon, and changing it is disruptive. Make a better, policy-based (real policies) argument, and get agreement before making further changes. Belchfire-TALK 03:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

So your argument is that hypothetically an article said that they do not like Asian people based on secondary sources, they are automatically anti-Asian? Am I understanding that correctly? ViriiK (talk) 03:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's say that our primary source for Stormfront characterizes the organization as "pro-white". Does that mean that's how we should describe it? How about if our secondary sources instead call it "anti-black"? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Or we can just take out the term completely. Anything but anti-gay. Say another logical scenario unlike yours: A labor organization is against free trade with China. They call for more domestic production here in the United States so they call themselves Pro-American while being against any form of trade with the Chinese. Secondary sources reports on this and makes the determination that they are actually anti-Chinese. You are basically saying if there was a case, they have to be labeled anti-Chinese. Is that correct? ViriiK (talk) 05:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm reminding you that my Stormfront analogy is quite apt. We have a primary source that's not comfortable admitting that they're anti-gay, but we have high quality secondary sources, such as http://abcnews.go.com/Business/chick-fil-blocked-opening-chicago-store/story?id=16853890#.UBYZVJ2PX3Q and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2180410/Sarah-Palin-Tweets-support-Chick-Fil-A-anti-gay-tirade-claiming-great-business.html?ito=feeds-newsxml which do use that term. We are obligated to use the neutral term, even if it's not what the primary source would prefer. Welcome to Wikipedia, where we write articles about organizations instead of letting organizations write articles about themselves. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

"anti-gay marriage". A Chicago politician said he will block Chick-fil-A from opening a restaurant in his ward, following anti-gay marriage remarks by the fast food chain's president. Context matters and that is extremely dishonest of you to omit the marriage part. So that source is out and you're depending on the Daily Mail article to back up your point based on an article about Sarah Palin's tweets rather than reporting directly on the story? ViriiK (talk) 05:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Your analysis is factually mistaken. The first article is titled "Chicago Politician Will Ban Chick-fil-A From Opening Restaurant After Anti-Gay Comments". In the text, it speaks of "support of anti-gay organizations" and links to a video[3] entitled "Chick-fil-A Battles Against Anti-Gay Controversy".

Clearly, you were not very careful in reading the article. Now that I've corrected your error and thereby refuted your premise, do you concede that we must call Chick-fil-a anti-gay? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

No. ViriiK (talk) 06:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Your response is entirely unreasonable, which means that your opinion has no weight whatsoever and cannot affect consensus. So long as you blatantly disregard the facts of the matter, I will politely disregard your unsupported conclusions. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for what? WP:AGF especially WP:AAGF. It's a nice read. I'm not going to support your pursuit to restore the anti-gay inflammatory description with many interpretations on what that mean especially when Avanu has already found the easy solution to this. We can either A) keep it or B) remove it entirely with no substitution. ViriiK (talk) 07:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You were "forced"? Is someone from Equality Matters standing next to you with a gun to your head? – Lionel ^(talk) 03:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire, you made a dishonest edit comment, pretending it was minor when it wasn't. More to the point, your edit violates WP:NPOV. We cannot use a primary source's non-neutral self-description. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It occurs to me that it might be helpful for you to review WP:RV. Pay particular attention to the sections titled "When to revert" and "Exceptions". I hope this helps! Belchfire-TALK 04:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I'd like to suggest you take a quick look at WP:MINOR, which explains that it was incorrect for you to mark your edit as minor. Incorrect or dishonest comments are a sufficient reason to revert an edit as vandalism. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

A better characterization of Still-24's logic might go like this: Still-24 likes cheeseburgers, therefore he is anti-pizza. That's roughly how much sense he is making. Belchfire-TALK 05:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't have anything to do with what I said. What I said is that our sources call it anti-gay, so we should. It's that simple. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, only kind of. What sources report (WP:RS) is that THEIR sources are calling C-f-A "anti-gay". Don't get me wrong, I am all for including the epithet being thrown around, since it IS the epithet being thrown around, but proper attribution is needed, and then the narrative has to immediately switch to why what how and when, in an NPOV. I think the problem other editors are having is that you are just stuck on the epithet itself. Having C-f-A or the other orgs. state what THEY consider their agenda to be is not a violation of NPOV either in describing the programs nor in answer to the claims being made, it is a balancing perspective, if not used exclusively. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

IMO, and seemingly the opinions of many most others, the article is correctly tuned to reflect reality: CfA is a pro-family organization that has been branded "anti-gay" by its political opponents. That's what the RSs actually say, and I've yet to see a convincing argument to the contrary. The logical error committed by many is to assume that because sources seem to say something, Wikipedia should repeat it in its own voice. This thinking ignores nuance (or cannot grasp it) for its own ideological convenience and is a clear failure to strive for NPOV. Belchfire-TALK 18:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Referring to CfA as a "pro-family" organization is a matter of perspective. So it referring to it as "anti-gay." People who refer to CfA as "anti-gay" would claim the term "pro-family" is POV, and vice versa. There's no point in anyone here declaring either descriptor to be POV because, that declaration is based on one's POV. With respect to the purpose such a descriptor would serve in the article, I suppose it might provide the reader some explanation of why some considered the contributions notable. I think that Alfie's edit is better than either "anti-gay" or "pro-family" in that it is an incontrovertible, NPOV fact. MsFionnuala (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You're right about there being two views, but I would suggest that the way to resolve them is to look at our sources. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I think Belch is on to something. Are there any objections (besides Still) to this theme: "CfA is a pro-family organization that has been branded "anti-gay" by its political opponents"? If not, let's integrate it into the article. – Lionel ^(talk) 10:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I would object, as it would then suggest that it was a case of mere labeling/stigma by the LGBT lobby, whereas there is a real issue which is whether same-sex marriage should be legitimised or not and Chick-fil-A clearly is involved in this. Dan Cathy's statement on the Ken Coleman Show spells out quite clearly his opposition to same-sex marriage, and Chick-fil-A is subsidizing organisations, some of them very closely affiliated to the company, which are opposed to same-sex marriage and are promoting - shall we say - a very defined and exclusive definition of marriage. Hence the edit I made some time ago (and which stands as I am writing) which, as Ms Fionnuala has said earlier in this thread (19:16, 30 July), is NPOV, and avoids using either the term "anti-gay" or "pro-family" - which in both cases are misleading and POV. Alfietucker (talk) 13:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Aditionally, wouldn't one have to say "CFA is a pro-HETEROSEXUAL family organization"...as they've worked against families headed by same sex couples? Codenamemary (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

If you fight over the use of "anti-gay" and "hate group", and do not drill down to what the actual issues are, then it IS just labeling/stigmatizing. Sorry, but the focus of both CfA and the orgs it donates to is "pro-family", because they say it is. You can have a dispute about whether their self-identifying purpose is met, is apt, or also results in something else, but you cannot dispute that it is THEIR guiding principle. You can and SHOULD, similarly, state that outside groups take exception to SOME of their programs, and which ones they are. I am a little shocked to hear arguments that the terms "anti-gay" and "pro-family" are actually the same thing, but in different POVs; they AREN'T, unless you are a fringe partisan of either persuasion. The only edit from Lionelt's version I would change is "by its political opponents", and the use of the word "branded"; these are a little un-encyclopedic.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Self identification most certainly DOES NOT override third party analysis. The subject has an inherent conflict of interest. Like the KKK and the Nazis, Cfa can present themselves however they want, (and we should present their view (specifying it as their view)) but the third party analysis is the important component. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

"Analysis" is just another word for "opinion". Such things must be identified as such and attributed to their sources. Belchfire-TALK 18:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

This fetish for "opinions" among POV-pushing editors is really fascinating, but also a violation of WP policy. When reliable sources across the board use a term, we use that term as well; in-text attribution to half a dozen different sources is ridiculous. (Although it would amuse me personally to see someone write "Mitt Romney, whom the New York Times and the Washington Post refer to as a 'Republican'...") –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Roscelese, I usually agree with you on these matters, but you're completely wrong here. There is genuine doubt among Republicans as to whether Mitt Romney is sufficiently far to the right to count as a true Republican and not a RINO. As such, his Republican status is merely an opinion that must be attributed. :-) Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

When reliable sources say that somebody holds an opinion, we can state that. But it's still an opinion, not a fact, and we can't misrepresent it as such. Belchfire-TALK 21:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

That's interesting, but how does it relate at all to what we're talking about here? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow... Wikipedia really hates Chic-Fil-A & Christians

Seriously... I have read "some" articles on Wikipedia that "lean" one way or another, but most are VERY unbiased and "matter-of-fact" However this one about a fast food restaurant is just wrong. It is off the charts. Pretend for a moment you have no idea who Chic-fil-a is. You have not heard about any of the issues. If you can, put yourself in that setting and read the article. If after that you can say it is "encyclopedia worthy" well okay. However this reads more like something on Facebook. Totally opposite of what I have come to expect from Wikipedia. I have also read the "talk" page, and my advice is that everyone calm down and figure out how to reconstruct this article where it does not make Wikipedia look like some rag. Share the knowledge, not that hate! --Mt6617 (talk) 03:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It's the Cabal. You weren't supposed to notice. Belchfire-TALK 03:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The irony is that Belchfire isn't joking. There's a sanctioned group called WikiProject Conservatism that, in practice, works to increase conservative bias, particularly on articles that they believe they own. Belchfire is a beloved member. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Family Resource Council

It appears that the SPLC does not consider the Family Research Council a "hate group". The SPLC does not have an asterisk identifying the FRC as one on their website (this was a link given at the FOTF talk page). Perhaps they used to, but apparently the situation has changed. The SPLC still considers them anti-gay, but not a hate group. It looks like the term should be removed from this article. 72Dino (talk) 03:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

There are at least two citations in the article that state otherwise here and here. It seems like you are doing some original research. - MrX 04:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

A nonsensical allegation if ever I saw one. As if nobody ever misquoted a source around this place. Sheesh. And as if no journalist ever got something wrong (or just outright lied). If SPLC de-listed FRC (not out of the question, since FRC pushed back pretty hard), it would be incumbent on us to get it right, don't you think? Belchfire-TALK 04:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly not OR because it is published by the organization making the designation (meets the "reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented" requirement.) I thought the designation had changed. I think what happened is the source used at FOTF was from 2005, and the references here were later. So it looks like the FRC was designated a hate group sometime after the link from 2005. 72Dino (talk) 04:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Enough, already. The second citation reads:

The Family Research Council’s opposition to gay rights has landed the outfit on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s list of “hate groups” — a label strongly denied by the influential Christian conservative organization.

And that's in 2010. So, no, the SPLC hasn't changed its mind and we don't get to stop identifying it as a hate group.

See how simple it is when we stick to what our reliable sources say instead of pointlessly arguing? Now let's move on to more productive things... Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the SPLC did change its mind. In 2005 it did not consider the FRC a hate group according to their website. They now do. 72Dino (talk) 05:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly: they do now. So we can move on. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that (1) the secondary source is almost 2 years old and (2) SPLC's website doesn't seem to list FRC as a hate group. As I said before, we need to get this right. Remember what Still always says: "We must report what our reliable sources say!" If SPLC doesn't have FRC currently listed, the 2 year old news story goes out the window. Belchfire-TALK 05:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The SPLC says FRC is a hate group, as of two years ago. There is no requirement for all statements to be in the last year. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

There IS a requirement for reliable sources to be consistent with observable facts. If SPLC doesn't list FRC as a hate group, the secondary source isn't so reliable any more, is it? If somebody can't cough up something in the way of a confirmation from SPLC, we'll need to talk about removing this from the article as a non-fact, or at least stating it in the past tense. Belchfire-TALK 05:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The SPLC lists FRC as a hate group. Our sources show this, including SPLC itself. You've said nothing to refute this and your edit was counterproductive. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Gee, that's funny... I can't find anywhere on SPLC's website where it says that. All it says is "anti-gay". You seem to be doing some original research here. Maybe we need to take this to DRN, if you don't want to, you know, say what the sources say. Belchfire-TALK 06:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Then I guess you never looked at http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/news/splc-adds-family-research-council-to-hate-groups-list, which calls it a hate group. Enough said. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Have to agree with Still. SPLC has FRC on its "Hate map", and while it doesn't list "hate" in the description, it doesn't list the word "hate" in the "Neo-Nazi" category either. I don't think there is an ambiguity in the latter. On the other hand, the CRITERIA for listing in the Anti-gay category are questionable at best, there is a need to not just simply slap a label but to state WHY SPLC puts it on the list. As far as can be seen, the anti-gay definition that SPLC uses means "opposed to gay marriage", as the "hate President" used to be.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Click on "1,018 known hate groups" on SPLC's "Hate and Extremism page. Select "District of Columbia" from the drop-down list. You'll be brought to this page, which lists FRC. If anyone would like to go to the mats at DRN on this, I'm more than happy to. MsFionnuala (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

This looks like a settled issue: the FRC is anti-gay and we should call it that. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Not a settled issue. Please don't start an edit war in the middle of discussion. This thread has only been open 2 days. – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 07:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

This recent removal is absolutely ridiculous. Editors' personal feelings about the relevance of a $1000 contribution to FRC do not override WP policy on following reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It is clearly a NPOV violation to focus on one small donation and ignore all of the rest. Arzel (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Nah, we're including all of them, but we're definitely including the donation to this hate group. That's especially notable. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 23:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

So clearly you are here to push a POV. At least you are nice enough to admit it.

MsFionnuala, why did you remove the amount donated to the FRC? It is reliably sourced and relevant to the section. Seems like you simply want to push a POV as well. It is really disheartening to see WP being used for political purposes as is evident here. Arzel (talk) 03:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Tea time. Could we agree to keep separate discussion SEPARATE. Issue 1; does the SPLC label FRC an anti-gay hate group, and if so, why does it, and is this justified? Issue 2; is it appropriate to attach an "anti-gay" descriptive label to references to FRC, particularly since the disputed activities are not the whole of what they do? Issue 3; is it NPOV to characterize Chick-fil-A as making anti-gay donations based on a small donation to FRC, especially without reference to what the donation was for? I've heard arguments on both side, but the conversation is getting confused when argument supporting 1 is folowed by argument against 2 (just example)--209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

1. There's no doubt that it does, and it's not our job to argue over whether it's justified.
2. Yes, the FRC is an SPLC-designated anti-gay hate group. They're also against some other things, but that doesn't stop them from being anti-gay. Consider that if I were to donate to the KKK, they'd be both anti-immigrant and anti-black, which means it's fair to use either of those terms. However, the issue for this article isn't just the FRC, but all of the other anti-gay orgs that CfA contributes to. FRC is just an exceptionally clear example due to its hate group status.
3. That's not even the question. We have reliable sources that refer to CfA contributing to anti-gay orgs, regardless of FRC. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Still-24 seems to recognize the insignificance of the donation to FRC (again, 1/2000 of the total). However, he seems oblivious to WP:WEIGHT, as do most others in favor of inclusion. A much better case for including mention of the donation to FRC might be found in the fact that Floyd Corkins was carrying 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches when he shot the guard at FRC headquarters.[4] The man has obviously been misunderstood - clearly he was just bringing them lunch. Belchfire-TALK 17:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

again, it is not up for us to "recognize the insignificance of the donation to FRC". It is up to us to determine whether the reliable sources consider the donation to FRC notable. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The size of the donation is reliably sourced as well. BALANCE would seem to require pointing it out. What's your next argument? Belchfire-TALK 18:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It is your synthesized claim that the size of the FRC contribution was so small that we should treat it as insignificant. Our reliable sources disagree; they seem to be treating any contribution to this anti-gay hate group as significant. You have been trying very, very hard to push your synthesis onto the page, this time by carefully juxtaposing the dollar amounts for contrast. This is a clear violation of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, so I reverted it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Our sources also saw fit to mention the dollar amounts. We need not say if the FRC contribution is significant or insignificant, but the huge disparity suggests strongly in favor of simply giving the actual figures. Mind you, the dollar figures were already present in the article, and have been for two weeks. But they were buried in the reference notes. Saying it was a clear violation of anything is simply bullshit. If there was any violation of NPOV, it was your revert. Belchfire-TALK 20:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to have to warn you about your use of strong language. Calling someone's words "bullshit" is a clear violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, and you've been around long enough to know this. So you're going to refactor that, or I'll refactor it for you.

When you had them buried in reference notes, there was no handy juxtaposition intended to convey the theory you synthesized. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

So it is important to note the donation to the FRC, but it is undue weight and NPOV to note the amount? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? Arzel (talk) 01:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I must admit I'm rather at a loss as to why, if it's simply presented without a POV statement, we should keep the amount donated out of the text: any reason I might have missed? Alfietucker (talk) 02:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me explain. Belchfire has a theory -- and this is purely original research -- that we're making too big a deal over the small amount of money donated to FRC. That's why he's tried so hard to have the article imply his theory by implicitly comparing the amounts. He's stopped just short of saying it, but he's putting the numbers up in a way that the comparison is hard to avoid. Maybe it's less a theory and more an ax to grind.

The problem is that his theory is a) his and b) wrong. Really, (a) is reason enough to keep it out, but (b) makes it important to do so. It's wrong because the FRC is a hate group, precisely in the same way that the KKK is, so even a token donation is a huge big hairy deal. That's why our reliable sources make a point of mentioning the FRC. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Well I've already argued several times that the amount is a red herring: it seems to me more significant that a sum which is rather more than small change was given at all (would any of us give $5 to an organization we disapproved of?). Anyway, it seems to me not to matter whether the actual figure is included or not, so long as there is no WP:SYN involved by attempting to give it a spin either way. Alfietucker (talk) 11:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

A fair question about the amount. I don't know the inner workings about the charitable arm of CfA, but one could reasonably assume (and setting aside the fact that we aren't in the assumption business) that the process for approving and disbursing $1K is somewhat different than $1,000k. That check could have been cut by any number of low level underlings. Or it could have been cut by Cathy Sr himself. The SPLC designation is not widley known, and one certainly wouldn't expect the average joe or jane in finance to draw the conclusion that FRC is on the same level as the KKK. But it is precisly this reason that certain POV pushers want this material in, they want to lead the reader to that conclusion that FRC=KKK and how could CfA possibly have given them one red cent. I'm not saying any of this is reason for inclusion or exclusion but the amount is something to consider presenting to the reader.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

This is pure speculation and has no bearing on the article. Also, calling people POV pushers is not particularly civil. On the whole, I find nothing here that is relevant to the issue at hand or otherwise productive. Wikipedia is not a forum. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Question on use of "anti-gay"

In re the section titled Controversy regarding same-sex marriage stance, second paragraph, second sentence: "Details also came to light of donations to anti-gay organizations . . . " Where exactly does the description "anti-gay" come from? All I see is the term used in the HuffPost gay rights blog. Did I miss something? Badmintonhist (talk) 06:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in repeating this. Scroll up and you'll see that, for example, FRC is SPLC-designated as an anti-gay hate group. You'll also see any number of reliable sources using the phrase. We've debated this, formed a consensus and moved on. I politely suggest that you honor this consensus. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

@Badmintonhist, it's a good thing you asked that. See the previous discussion above yours. It seems to be that there was no consensus because a certain user arbitrarily "settled" the issue himself. It seems like a good idea to bring it to DRN. ViriiK (talk) 07:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

If the SPLC is all this is based on, I'm going to have to agree that it's not sourced reliably. SPLC is a political organization, and so all we really have here is a political claim, which is a far cry from anything resembling a fact. Belchfire-TALK 07:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I was looking back at that sentence and honestly I'm pretty sure that the way it's phrased is giving it undue weight. They're labeled a hate group by the SLPC but where's the balance? I certainly don't see it. It's singling out one organization which a certain user wants to use the hate group label by the SLPC. There's an interesting thing that I found here [5]. Chick-fil-A donates over a million dollars to the Marriage & Family Foundation but only $1,000 to the Family Research Council? That is extremely undue weight. ViriiK (talk) 07:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Viriik, you deleted three citations and removed items that there is a clear consensus for. This is not a productive edit, so it has been reverted. I suggest that you move straight to the D in BRD. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The Marriage & Family Foundation is anti-gay, but not an SPLC-designated anti-gay hate group. Essentially, FRC is on par with the KKK. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, discussion is going to be difficult now that you've violated BRD by edit-warring. You've been notified. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE. That's all I will say. I'm at 1RR. Thank you. ViriiK (talk) 08:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

1RR http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chick-fil-A&diff=507650874&oldid=507645875

2RR http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chick-fil-A&diff=507653862&oldid=507653596

You are edit-warring. Revert yourself and we can have a pleasant discussion about WP:UNDUE. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually 1RR. I removed UNDUE the first time. You reverted (1RR) which I reverted your revert (1RR). Thank you. ViriiK (talk)

Save the Wikilawyering for WP:3RRN. Revert yourself now. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Do report me then. No. ViriiK (talk) 08:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

What about Still going to 4RR at Paul Ryan? Is that still fresh? – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 08:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You mean the one that Belchfire reported as 5RR without noticing that two of his diffs weren't even reverts? Keep it up. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. I see that the passage in question has now been changed several times. The SPLC publication was used as a source for its own opinion that the Family Research Council is an "anti-gay" "hate group" but that certainly does not explain why the other organizations that Chick-fil-A contributed to were collectively described as "anti-gay" in Wikipedia's voice. Badmintonhist (talk) 08:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Various neutral reliable sources call these various organizations anti-gay. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

And is that the way most reliable sources have described them or are certain editors latching on to the ones that have? By the way, which "neutral reliable sources" have described the group of organizations that Chick-fil-A has contributed to as "anti-gay"? Badmintonhist (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Well it's not so much of the fact that sentence was removed because they were "anti-gay" but I removed it because of the hate group label towards a certain group being singled out of all who Chick-fil-A contributed to. It was that one group who apparently received the LEAST amount of money ($1,000) was singled out vs the one who received the most amount of money (Marriage and Family) per the link I gave above at Equalitymatters. What was the $1,000 contribution for towards FRC? Who knows. A million and half towards Marriage & Family especially admitted by the company's directors of why they committed that much money towards is definitely significant and worth mentioning over some obsecured donation that was a drop in the bucket of how much they contribute in the bigger picture. ViriiK (talk) 08:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Your original research is unpersuasive. Newspaper articles consider the FRC contribution to be important, perhaps because it's not just anti-gay, but a designated hate group. You should revert right now, as part of BRD. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Not OR. [6]. Thank you. ViriiK (talk) 08:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

ViriiK - just to observe re $1,000 donated to FRC: while in the scheme of things it's not the largest donation, it's not small change. The fact Chick-fil-A is known to have donated this to FRC, given FRC's actions including the spreading of hostile and non-scientific claims about homosexuality, is the point at issue. Alfietucker (talk) 09:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

However, we're talking about singling out the one organization who in turn has been singled out as the anti-gay hate group by the SLPC which doesn't matter. The controversy started with the fact that Chick-fil-A donated to pro-marriage groups (against gay marriage) which was their aim in the first place as admitted by themselves. It doesn't seem to me that they donated to them because they were a hate group unless someone can prove me wrong on that. ViriiK (talk) 09:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It was "singled out" because it merits the status of hate group, whereas the rest are just anti-gay. Donating to a hate group is highly notable. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but hold the OR. Or do you have a source that says this? No? Didn't think so.

OK, so we have a pretty clear WEIGHT issue here. $1000 isn't even greens fees to a guy like Dan Cathy, and shouldn't be notable even if he made the check out to Satan himself. Belchfire-TALK 09:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

(EC)Leave aside the label "hate group" for a moment - not because it's irrelevant but because it appears to be clouding the point (which is not whether C-f-A knew it was "a hate group"). The point is that $1,000 is not small change - it's still a substantial donation, and unless it can be demonstrated that Chick-fil-A attached strings to it, controlling how FRC used it (highly unlikely, I would think), then it is reasonable to see this as a blanket endorsement of FRC's activities. Given FRC's reputation, this is bound to be controversial - hence its being mentioned not only here (until it was cut) but in several news stories. Alfietucker (talk) 09:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

They did have obvious strings attached again admitted by their own organization. They were supporting groups who were campaigning against homosexual marriage efforts. It can't get any clear than that. ViriiK (talk) 09:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. There's also a new angle: apparently the lunatic who shot an FRC guard was carrying a Chick-fil-A bag. The implication is that he shot at the FRC because of their CfA connection. So, yes, burying this connection would be a huge mistake. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's a quote:[7]

Fast food empire Chik-fil-A has been at the center of a recent controversy over gay marriage after Chik-fil-A President Dan Cathy recently spoke out against it.

The Family Research Council promotes traditional marriage and other issues, lobbying against gay rights, abortion and embryonic stem cell research. It's president, Tony Perkins, came out strongly in support of Chick-fil-A's president, Williams reported. The Family Research Council gets money from the company that owns Chick-fil-A.

Ouch. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

An excellent example of how some media outlets lie their asses off. There's nothing substantial about $1000 in this context. It's 1/2000 of the total. Not even a fart in a windstorm. You guys are grasping at straws. Belchfire-TALK 09:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

An excellent example of your personal opinion disagreeing with our reliable sources. Rules say we go with the reliable sources. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

For at least the 20th time: sourcing is the threshold for inclusion, but it is NOT a guarantee. Undue weight is undue weight, and in many cases, no amount of sourcing can change that. Indeed, often times, robust sourcing merely reinforces it. This seems like one of those times. The sources tell us that FRC got 1/2000 of the money that CfA spent on political causes related to SSM, therefore FRC's role in the narrative is necessary diminished. That's simply based on the facts. A spurious and politically-motivated "hate group" listing doesn't make CfA's financial contributions any larger (except in your own mind). Belchfire-TALK 09:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The relative size of the donation *may* diminish CfA's role in FRC's narrative, but it does not follow that it diminishes the significance of CfA's donation to FRC in CfA's narrative. The fact is CfA *did* donate to that organization, and it is something which has been picked up on by the media and added to the controversy: so it is not WP:UNDUE to mention this in the CfA article. Alfietucker (talk) 10:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not certain I agree with Belchfire's interpretation of WP:UNDUE. "...in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." I think that undue weight in this context would apply to a fact that, say, is referred to in only some small amount of reliable sources. But this FRC bit isn't. Many, many reliable sources cite this. It's not about the $1000 making up a small chunk of the overall, it's the absence or presence of that fact among reliable sources. MsFionnuala (talk) 10:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

@Alfietucker, actually it does clearly indicate why which is why I've objected to the singling out. The reasoning behind CfA's donations to these MULTIPLE organizations was because of their opposition to SSM as indicated by the interview that Cathy had on the Coleman Show. However the $1,000 donation was in 2010 whereas the interview took place in 2012 so there seems to be no indications according to any sources that they kept donating to FRC after the 2010 one but there are for Family & Marriage since it's a million and half smacks. Remember, the controversy blew out because CfA's donations to groups like Family & Marriage working against SSM. For example, this was one of the first stories out there [8] which it doesn't appear to talk about the labeling by the SLPC. [9] can help you out which I limited the range from July 16 (The day of the interview) to July 17. When I add in SPLC, I get commentaries from the users commenting on the articles and I can add 4 or 5 days after that and still get nothing. So it didn't center around the Family Research Council, it just centered around the whole entire package of the donations. ViriiK (talk) 10:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

@ViriiK - sorry, I've just realised that there's been a bit of misunderstanding. When I mentioned the hypothetical "strings attached" I meant "controlling how FRC used it [i.e. the donation]", *not* how Chick-fil-A decided which organizations it donated to. So, assuming there was no mechanism in place to allow Chick-fil-A to control where the money was spent *once it had been donated*, then it's safe to assume that by giving that donation C-f-A signified its approval of FRC's policies. Alfietucker (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

MsFionnuala is right. UNDUE has absolutely nothing to do with how much the donation weighs either into FRC's budget or into CfA's total donations, unless reliable sources decline to talk about it because they consider it unimportant. Because DUE/UNDUE has everything to do with how much sources talk about something. The repeated assertion that weight has nothing to do with sourcing is bizarro. Next you'll be suggesting that, I don't know, we shouldn't mention the Aurora shooting in James Eagan Holmes because really, what's 12 deaths compared to the entire U.S. population? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Reductio ad absurdum doesn't help your case. Belchfire-TALK 16:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The absurd suggestions on this page did not begin with my comment. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. It's painfully clear what WP:UNDUE does not excuse hiding the fact that CfA donated to this hate group. Consider that, if Romney were to donate even $1 to the KKK, it would be a political disaster; the amount is irrelevant. We've talked this over, but ViriiK's bold edit just doesn't hold up to the combination of Wikipedia policy and our sources. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah... the point is that UNDUE doesn't have anything to do with the contribution ratio, for lack of a better term. The fact that Roscelese included that other stuff in there doesn't detract from my original point. MsFionnuala _T^L_C 17:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Be more precise. What exactly overcomes the 2000:1 ratio besides editors' personal preferences? Belchfire-TALK 17:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

WP's policies on due weight, which are about the weight in sources, not the weight of objects. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The WP policy overcomes it. The definition of "undue" that you and others are using is not consistent with the policy. Once again, from WP:UNDUE, "...in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources." MsFionnuala _T^L_C 18:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think there is more support for a balanced view in NPOV than you realize, given that we have a reliable primary source that kicks the legs out from under what the media is saying. Belchfire-TALK 19:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

A primary source cannot kick the legs out from under a secondary source, because your personal feelings about the content of the primary source do not trump our policy on WP:RS. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

But how much is the media actually saying it? A good question relating to due weight is this: Among all the mainstream news sources that have reported on Chick-fil-A's contributions to groups opposing same sex marriage what percentage of those sources have specifically singled out the Family Research Council?Badmintonhist (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

From the quick search I did, googling "chick fil a contributions," then looking at the articles that were from mainstream sources, and were about the controversy/contributions (which were 5 articles by my count), 4 of them specifically mentioned FRC. In fact, even the Christian Post and Fox News did. In the Fox article, FRC was the only organization mentioned. MsFionnuala _T^L_C 20:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

That's the thing. I had already proven it with the sources that I was able to find excluding dates from at least the 16th of July to a 10 day range. The whole controversy centered around the ENTIRE whole donations to organizations that made efforts against SSM. After all, it was pointed out in the interview that Cathy gave. Did the interviewer ask if he knew if FRC was labeled a hate group by SLPC? Nope, doesn't seem like it. However a certain editor went out of their way to find the one offending group in this pot that has been indeed labeled a hate group by the SLPC when sources did not point this out. It's one thing talking about that in that respective article but in the CfA article? ViriiK (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

MsF, you are incorrectly assuming that we are limited to secondary sources. All you've done is point out how the media is getting the story wrong. We have a duty to re-tell their version, but when there is clear evidence they are biased or simply wrong, we have an equal responsibility to point out their screw-ups. The government tax filings that show the minuscule size of the contributions being touted as all-important by the media are not being given their due significance. Belchfire-TALK 20:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) At this point, I'm starting to forget what we're arguing about, and I have to keep reminding myself if I am in the CfA article, the FRC article, or the CfA controversy article. That said, I don't have a problem with not using "hate group" in this article, because the sources don't use that term in the CfA articles I looked at. I do have a problem dropping FRC altogether from the article, because the sources do mention FRC, and mention them often. MsFionnuala _T^L_C 20:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

That's what my aim was in the first place. Removing the hate group label because it wasn't pointed out in ANY sources that I've looked at regarding the whole controversy. The hate group label was put in by other users just to point out in their own form of OR that this is a hate group even though it's sourced. ViriiK (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Your unwillingness or inability to read the sources (eg. [10]) will not prevent policy-compliant users from editing normally. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I already demonstrated to you of how this controversy broke out in regards to CfA and why people objected to it. Tell me, did they object to it because of the FRC donations? Nope. They objected because of the interview where Cathy confirmed that he donated to organizations as a whole that were opposed to SSM. Of course, you have an axe to grind. ViriiK (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, no. Denying the existence of reliable sources which point out that a major focus of the controversy is the donations = you are not qualified to be editing this article. Competence is required. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Based on what? I've already did the source searches. Now you are just trying to use a certain policy in order to disregard me. Can you tell me that on July 17th and the week from that point on after the Cathy interview was because of the FRC label by the SPLC? Yes or no. That's as simple as it gets. ViriiK (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm sorry, with that comment you just demonstrated that you don't know what you're talking about as far as content (we already knew that you didn't know what you were talking about as far as policy). Why on earth should we engage in original analysis of what a primary source didn't say when we have plenty of secondary sources - the ones reporting on the donations, since you apparently aren't aware that there were multiple issues feeding into this controversy - which discuss FRC? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the policies don't say to embrace some sources and ignore others. Belchfire-TALK 21:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:COMMONSENSE should be a good guidline to follow. We have a situation where CfA has donated about $2 million dollars to various groups, yet some want to focus on the $1,000 donation which is ~ 0.05% of their total donation amount. The reason for the focus clearly is that the SLPC has called the FRC a hate group, which is then made prominent in the designation. This is clearly undue weight and a Neutral Point of View violation. By presenting the inforamation in a way to focus on the one small donation it is implied that this is a very important aspect of where they donated their money. How is it, btw, that the SPLC is the arbitor of what is a hate group? Arzel (talk) 22:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Arzel. Although your argument about donation makes some sense, i think we should also give weight to the amount of coverage in the media. I think we might need a broader input because a similar discussion is ongoing on another talk page about a similar issue. Pass a Method talk 22:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

We don't violate NPOV or Undue Weight here just because it is a flash point in the media. Additionally, I would quote WP:LABEL, which is being ignored as well. Arzel (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

To answer your last question, the SPLC is the most commonly used public resource on hate groups and has been for a long time. Usually when newspaper articles and the like describe anything as a hate group it's because it's classified as one by the SPLC. a13ean (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Read the phrasing of the way it is now.

A) In June and July 2012 - The controversy started in late June up to middle of July right up to the Cathy interview.

B) Chick-fil-A COO Dan Cathy made several public statements supporting what he believes to be "the traditional family," saying about same-sex marriage that those who "have the audacity to define what marriage is about" were "inviting God's judgment on our nation". - The most prominent example was the Cathy interview on the Coleman show which caused a lot of the furor.

C) Details also came to light of donations to political organizations which oppose LGBT rights, including $1,000 to the Family Research Council - Equalitymatters had already pointed this out how much that the FRC received but they did not point out that the FRC is labeled a hate group by the SPLC.

D) identified as an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. - This was not the basis for the original outcry in the first place. This was added in way after the fact in order to point out by a certain user why it was a bad donation but it never was the reason for the controversy.

It should be clear that D) had nothing to do with the reason of the controversy in the first place. Just the fact that CfA donated millions overall to multiple organizations opposing SSM or LGBT rights. ViriiK (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It should be clear that your original research is unpersuasive.

The reason that even $1,000 to FRC is such a big deal is that it's a hate group. That's why the SPLC identifies it as one. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 23:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not OR. Thank you. Other users are free to read that. ViriiK (talk) 23:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It's entirely OR. Read WP:OR. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 23:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

That's entirely your interpretation. Read the A B C D. They came from the article. I understand that all three of the first had to do with each other which I'm fine with that statement that Cathy / Winshape did donate to causes that opposed LGBT rights / SSM. However D was added in to give more weight way way after the fact which unfortunately is undue. As I've already researched in the sources, none of the objections made by ANY organizations even pro-gay groups made their objections because of the labeling after the interview. All of which I found through reading the sources especially provided by Miss above. I know you're the editor that added the "hate" since you want to defend this but claiming my arguments is OR is not the case here. Belchfire on the other hand added in the rest of the phrasing. [11] vs yours [12] ViriiK (talk) 23:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the matter is a simple one. One or two POV pushers want the hate group designation for a simple reason, so that CfA is tarnished by association with FRC because the SPLC thinks FRC is on par with the KKK and stormfront. Codswollop if you ask me.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a revelation of your personal bias, not an argument rooted in Wikipedia policy. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The issue seems quite clear to me: regardless of when it was generally known that SPLC listed the Family Research Council, the FRC is what it is. For instance, years earlier the FRC published a pamphlet (in 1999) which stated: "One of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the prophets of a new sexual order." This is a vile slander against a whole community of people, and given this, it is legitimate to list C-f-A's sponsorship of FRC as this is a clear reason why there is such furore, regardless of SPLC's listing. If editors really want, this can be spelled out in the C-f-A article: but it seems to me contrary to the aim of that paragraph which is to give a succinct summary. Given what SPLC does, which is to list such "hate" groups, mentioning that FRC has been listed by the SPLC is a succinct way of signifying the issue about FRC. By the way, none of the editors who keep on branding the SPLC as a "political organization" explain why this necessarily discredits their actions. Correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK they are not affiliated with any political party. Alfietucker (talk) 08:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

A pamphlet from 1999 does not mean it is a hate group back then there was a lot more ignorance to homosexuality of whether it was nature versus nuture, also I can find a couple of protestant preachers that say the same thing does that mean whole protestant denominations should be labeled anti-gay (No) find me recent comments like that coming from the companies leaders and I'll concede my point. Also who vested the SPLC the ultimate authority in determining hate groups, where some hate groups like the KKK are regarded as a hate group by the vast majority of americans a charge not even the KKK disputes, therefore the American society has determined the KKK a hate group but as to FRC it is debated by large swaths of americans no determination has been made but by a singular political organization John D. Rockerduck (talk) 00:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem I'm having with your argument is that it's based on false premises. For example, you refer to the SPLC as a "political organization", when Alfie pointed out that it's non-partisan. You talk about some pamphlet in 1999, when the the hate group designation is based on much more recent events; the FRC was only listed in 2010. I could go on, but I think I've made it clear that, until your arguments use actual facts, we have to politely disregard them. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Many critics have said the SPLC leans to the left so it being non-partisan is debatable for instance Acorn called itself non-partsian and I think we know that is a lie also what recent events did the FCR engage that it attained that label all alfie mentioned was the pamphelet was from 1999 so if he presents that as evidence of course I'm going to talk about since Alfie used it as evidence I contrary to your claims was not talking about it your arguement is based on false premises and to say I should be ignored is not polite but rather uncivil since I never ignored you, but hey maybe I should if you going to treat new editors like that John D. Rockerduck (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC) :With all due respect, these critics lean hard to the right, so everything is to the left of them. The SPLC is non-partisan as there is no political party that they endorse. Even if they were left-leaning, there is no left-leaning major political party in America today; the Republicans are far right, the Democrats are moderates. Obama's programs are to the right of Nixon's!

The pamphlet was brought up by SPLC to establish a long history of anti-gay propaganda, but the hate group designation didn't come until more recently because the FRC didn't quite cross the line until 2010. It's not as if the FRC ever repudiated their earlier writing, so we can't just ignore it, and neither can the SPLC.

It is not uncivil to ignore an argument that is based on false premises; it is necessary and polite. Impolite would be insulting the person making the argument, impugning their intellect and so on. Unnecessary would be giving any weight to an argument that is demonstrably false. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

SPLC is non-partisan and highly respected, including by law enforcement. Not surprisingly, the Republican supporters of FRC were unhappy with the designation and struck back by falsely claiming SPLC was partisan. We should report on these false claims in the FRC article, but that's all. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 13:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I reverted removal of cited content by John D. Rockerduck, as it seems that this discussion has not been resolved by consensus. Also there is an apparent misapplication of WP:LABEL. From the contentious label section of the MoS: "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution."

Perhaps a solution to this ongoing issue is to attribute the so called labels to the organizations using them. — MrX 01:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I see that this has been reverted by the same editor, making virtually the same claim in the edit summary. Note, that one of the two sources say, and I quote "The Family Research Council is designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center". The other source did use the term labeled, however, as explained in the manual of style (not a policy by the way), and as I highlighted above, "Value-laden labels...are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject,..." — MrX 01:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Good points but whether the Splc is reliable is questionable as many prominant critics (1) say it leans to the left (including other organizations and college professors from Cornell) and just because one organization uses it does not mean it is "widely used" and wikipedia should not be a party for the SPLC's poltical games. Also to claim that it is the SPLC labeling FCR as a hate group is what started this controversy is unfactual gay-rights groups have been complaining about Chick-Fil-A about that for years as it happened years ago what started this controversy was Cathy's interview with the Baptist Press that was the Catalyst for this and what caused this controversy not anything the SPLC did so it should not be included (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

We've been over this a few times now. The SPLC is considered reliable by our secondary sources and by authorities such as the FBI. The fact that conservative critics deny its reliability is worth reporting, but we shouldn't pretend that these denials are factual. What started this controversy is not the SPLC labeling the FRC but Chick-fil-A's leader going on record against gay rights. He made it very public, and there was blowback.

In any case, the SPLC must be included because we are required to attribute strong claims such as "hate group". It also supports "anti-gay", although we've got tons of other sources for that bit. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Some points I would like to make from my prevoius referance

"Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism at California State University, said there was a “fine line” where a political group’s promotion of bigotry becomes hateful. He said that violent events often lead to “hate” terminology being used as “political battering rams" against mainstream groups, when the reality is much more complicated. Levin, who formerly worked for the SPLC, said he believed their definition of hate was defensible, but that his center does not consider FRC a hate group." A expert on Hate and extremism not to mention a former SPLC worker clearly stating that the FCR is not a hate group John D. Rockerduck (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

If we inlcude the SPLC label of the FCR then we would have to inlude the Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism at California State University groups along with others label that it is not a hate group for fairness and neutrality, but the article would then become serouisly of topic so the only practical course of action is to take out the SPLC all together; as that was not even what started this controversy John D. Rockerduck (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but look at the rest of what Levin says:

“[FRC’s] use of pseudoscience and wild allegations about gays certainly brings them up to the line, and a reasonable person could make that argument,” he said. “I do believe they promote bigotry; however for me, it has to be something more—not just falsehoods, but conspiratorial falsehoods, some kind of violence, and some kind of goal of destroying institutions of liberal democracy.”

Note phrases such as "up to the line", "a reasonable person could make that argument", and "however for me". So he's saying that the FRC is at least a borderline hate group and the SPLC isn't nuts to say it's a hate group outright, but Brian has his own standards. Goodie for him, but how is that any sort of refutation? He's admitting that the SPLC isn't wrong, while insisting that he'd do things a little bit differently if he were in charge. His personal standards require the FRC to engage in violence in addition to inciting it. But, again, those are just his personal standards, not the SPLC's.

The place to bring up Brian, if at all, would be either the FRC or SPLC articles, not this one. Here, it's peripheral and would be undue. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes and according to Brian the FCR is not a hate group he might not like them, but what he actually said is that they are not a hate group. Also top members of Academia Like Cornell professors also point out that the SPLC is a political organization as well as saying the FCR is not a hate group, to include SPLC a political organization like including Brian is in your own words "peripheral and would be undue" and should not be included also just because an organization is well-respected and claims non-partisanship does not mean it is free from political endeavors such as the Naacp a great organization but no doubt left-leaning and bias John D. Rockerduck (talk) 06:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It depends where. On the SPLC page, it's not WP:UNDUE to bring up significant minority views, such as Brian's and these Cornell professors, as long as we're very careful to be accurate about what they're saying. On this page or the FRC page, it would be undue.

These pages are not about the SPLC, so they should only refer to the SPLC when it's relevant and then only from the perspective of the subject of the page. So, for example, the FRC page should definitely include the FRC's criticism of the SPLC, and the SPLC page should probably also include that criticism, but the other criticism on the SPLC page doesn't belong in the FRC page. See what I mean? StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

NOTAFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Good points but whether the Splc is reliable is questionable as many prominant conservatives say it leans to the left and just because one organization uses it does not mean it is "widely used" John D. Rockerduck (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC) It's not questionable, it's merely disputed by conservatives. The FBI relies upon the SPLC's designations and we should, too. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC) I know the FBI and law enforcement agencies work with SPLC to develop strategies in dealing with violant hate groups (note: SPLC labels the FCR as a non-voilant hate group) but does the FBI designate FRC as a hate group itself, if so I'll concede to the F.B.I's authority on this subject but see no evidence of the F.B.I itself labeling it as a hate group John D. Rockerduck (talk) 02:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC) The only difference between the FRC and KKK, other than clothing, is that the latter does its own violence. The FBI web site links to the SPLC as a resource for hate groups, which is a clear endorsement. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC) But the F.B.I does not specfically designate the FRC as a hate group and just because the FBI views it as a source on hate groups does not mean it views it as the authority on hate groups. But C'mon I'm no fan of the FRC I view them as rather intolerant and small-minded but it surely has more differances to the KKK than that Still-24 John D. Rockerduck (talk) 03:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC) The FBI endorses the SPLC as a reliable source on these matters. Both the KKK and FRC say many of the same things, including defamations of whole populations, and say them in a way that encourages violence. The KKK also sometimes puts on a funny costume and kills someone. The FRC (currently) stops short of this. Ideologically and methodologically, they're on the same page. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Admittingly the FrC has at times called homosexuals pretty unfair and foul names as well as being ignorant of the homosexual community in general, but it has never preached violance towards the homosexual community or endorse illegal activity it works within the law unlike the KKK I'm sorry Still-24 but there are significantly differant organizations in their methods and idealogy John D. Rockerduck (talk) 03:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Seriously, don't believe me, just look on your own. Read Ku Klux Klan and write down what they hate. Then read Family Research Council and do the same. They're not identical, but the overlap is huge. The KKK is intellectually simpler but it's no more or less hateful than the FRC. Both justify and incite violence. Of course, different victims face different sorts of violence. For gay youth, there's bullying so persistent that it drives them to suicide, as well as the risk of being made homeless. Gay adults face the threat of physical violence, workplace discrimination and deprivation of basic human rights, such as marriage. The FRC's people have even gone so far as to suggest throwing gays behind bars! Now, it's not exactly the same thing as lynching and cross-burning, but it's not somehow better. The SPLC was completely right to recognize that the FRC had moved beyond being merely anti-gay into outright hate group status. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)