Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:31, 4 September 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chick-fil-A article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 15 days

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chick-fil-A article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 15 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Food and drink: Foodservice This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Related taskforces: /  This article is supported by the Foodservice task force. Food and Drink task list: edit history watch purge To edit this page, select here Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink: Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish Participate in project-related deletion discussions. Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this. Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here. Provide photographs and images for Category:Misplaced Pages requested images of food Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Companies This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Misplaced Pages:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Georgia (U.S. state): Atlanta Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Georgia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Georgia (U.S. state)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)Template:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)Georgia (U.S. state) Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Atlanta task force (assessed as High-importance). Atlanta task force To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate Atlanta related articles from Unassessed Atlanta articles and Category:Unknown-importance Atlanta articles. Citing sources : Unreferenced Atlanta articles Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects. Infobox : Atlanta articles without infoboxes Map : Misplaced Pages requested maps in Atlanta Photo : Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Atlanta Stubs : Work on stubs in Category:Atlanta stubs. Other : * Help out with articles placed in Category:Atlanta articles needing attention Add {{WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)|class=|importance=|atlanta=|atlanta-importance=}} project banner to Atlanta-related articles to talk pages and assess. Maintain and further improve articles already of high-quality. Get Atlanta into Featured article status. Improve groups of articles to meet the standards for a Good or Featured Topic. WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state) To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Crooked Creek (Georgia), Ed Defore Sports Complex, Audery Mill Creek, More (Georgia)... More (U.S.)... Assess : Rate articles from Unassessed Georgia (U.S. state) articles and Unknown-importance Georgia (U.S. state) articles. Citing sources : Unreferenced Georgia (U.S. state) articles Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category. Geographical coordinates : more Georgia (U.S. state) articles missing geocoordinate data Infobox : Georgia (U.S. state) articles without infoboxes Map : Misplaced Pages requested maps in Georgia (U.S. state) Photo : Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Georgia (U.S. state) Stubs : Work on stubs in articles in Georgia (U.S. state) stubs, Georgia (U.S. state) radio station stubs, Georgia (U.S. state) road stubs and Georgia (U.S. state) geography stubs. Other : *Deletion sorting: Please see the collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Georgia (U.S. state) - compiled by WikiProject Deletion sorting Help out with articles placed in Category:Georgia (U.S. state) articles needing attention Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability Tag the talk pages of Georgia (U.S. state)-related articles with the {{WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)}} banner. Get Georgia (U.S. state) to a featured article quality standard Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Conservatism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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 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. 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. Misplaced Pages 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 . 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/search/?title=Chick-fil-A&diff=507650874&oldid=507645875

2RR http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?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 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 Misplaced Pages'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. . 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:

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 Misplaced Pages 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 which it doesn't appear to talk about the labeling by the SLPC. 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 ", *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 Misplaced Pages 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 _TC 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 _TC 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 _TC 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 _TC 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. ) 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. vs yours 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 Misplaced Pages 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:

“ 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)

Winshape donations to anti-gay, Christian, or anti-gay Christian groups

Arzel reverted an edit that I made to the Controversy regarding same-sex marriage stance section as "hugely confusing and misleading. There is quite a bit of replication there as well."

So we can collaboratively improve this section, allow me to ask the following:

• In what way is it hugely confusing? Is it because of the amounts? (It is possible for both statements to be true, although I agree the replication should be edited out.)
• What is misleading about the three sentences that I added; content which was sourced from the Forbes article (and corroborated by other sources)?
• What wording changes do you propose so that this added, relevant information can be included in the article, so as not to confuse readers into thinking that Chick-fil-A is some magnanimous company who merely tithes to wholesome Christian organizations?

Thanks. — MrX 16:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The notable part of this is that some of their donations are to a group of Christian organizations which oppose same-sex marriage. Otherwise this section is confusing -- it's not like people are concerned because they donated to Heifer International or something. a13ean (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I would partially agree with the summary. I dont think its confusing however. I disagree that is what the sources said.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The reason I added the three sentences was to provide context, which I think was lacking in the original sentence. What specifically in the three sentences that I added do you believe is not in the source(s)? Do you see an error in the first sentence that I added?

I think Mr X's edit to include the Forbes article makes this abundantly clear:

"WinShape is the vehicle through which Chick-fil-A, and by extension the Cathys, have made about $5 million of donations to anti-gay marriage groups since 2003, with $1.9 million of that donated in 2010 to outfits including the Family Research Council and Marriage & Family Foundation. They’ve written checks to Exodus International, famous for “ex-gay” conversion therapy, and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, whose website includes a testimonial from a coach “delivered” from homosexuality."

a13ean (talk) 20:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

@ a13ean, I guess I'm not confused since I've read most of the sources, and I'm fairly familiar with the matter. Can you elucidate what you find confusing or, alternatively, suggest how the information can be better conveyed by rewording it? — MrX 20:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry my comment was not clear -- the only thing I'm confused about is why people want to identify these groups only as Christian rather than as Christian groups which oppose same-sec marriage, which is clearly what the sources call them. a13ean (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The source in the diff I made called them Christian organizations including FRC. The text clearly impled that ALL of the organizations were all anti LGBT. I might be confused though. I hope we are all talking about the same diff.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification a13ean. It sounds like you support the wording I added earlier today, prior to Arzel's reversion.

@little green rosetta] The Forbes source says "WinShape is the vehicle through which Chick-fil-A, and by extension the Cathys, have made about $5 million of donations to anti-gay marriage groups since 2003, with $1.9 million of that donated in 2010 to outfits including the Family Research Council and Marriage & Family Foundation. They’ve written checks to Exodus International, famous for “ex-gay” conversion therapy, and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, whose website includes a testimonial from a coach “delivered” from homosexuality."

This is a direct quote. Some, or all of these, may also be Christian organizations, I just don't know which.

I apologize if I'm obtuse and possibly missing your point though. — MrX 20:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the fault is mine. I was confusing diffs. Arzel has some issues with it, I think in terms of presentation. I'm ok with the content.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It is confusing because it implies that all of the money they have donated is to "anti-gay marriage groups" and then specifies a date for some with groups that have been specifically identified as "anti-gay" So what is it, all or some? It appears to be OR and SYNTH to claim that all $5 million is to anti-gay marriage groups, and it is misleading to imply that their donations (even if so) went to these groups because of their stance on gay marriage. additionally, it gives the impression that the very small amount to the FRC is a significant proportion of the 1.9 million. As it is right now, it is still misleading. Arzel (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the discussion Arzel. This content has been rewritten to reflect almost verbatim what several news organization have reported. If there is a OR/SYNTH issue, the quarrel is with the news organizations. Also, the FRC is small part of the picture. There is significantly more detail that breaks down other anti-gay organizations that have received funding from Winshape, but that level of detail is probably WP:UNDUE in this article and is covered in the Chick-fil-A same-sex marriage controversy article.

If you have any specific edit recommendations that would improve this section, I'm sure other editors would be interested in seeing them. — MrX 15:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I read the Forbes article and it looks like a feedback loop from the Winshape article just prior to August 3, 2012 which links back to a Huffpo article from 2011. I don't have time to look at it further right now, but it still doesn't look logical. Arzel (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe add this detailed material to the sub article where it might make more sense.

--Mollskman (talk) 13:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

This content was removed for, what I believe are, specious reasons. Mollskman, you did not provide a reason, so perhaps you could share your insights here, especially in the context of the discussion that occurred more a week ago (above).

Before Mollsman's two revisions, Truthsort removed it because of "majo synth violation; none of those sources say the donation was controversial." Actually, the title of the CNN/wtrv article is "Shooting sparks controversy over ‘hate’ designation for conservative group", so I guess we can dismiss that as a valid reason for deleting sourced content.

The other part of Truthsort's deletion was explained as "majo synth violation". This will require more explanation. In what way has this information been synthesized and how is it not consistent with the multiple sources that are cited? Please see the discussion that took place more than a week ago (above), especially the Forbes article. – MrX 13:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

ah, did you see my post above? --Mollskman (talk) 13:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean the one you made today? Your reason for deleting the content is that it is too detailed? 18 very important words were removed, as well as 4 sources. More importantly, you have essentially disinfected the article by removing the "hate group" reference, which is very well-sourced and has been discussed at length on this talk page. – MrX 14:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is the synth issue in question? I'm not seeing a reason for the removal as well.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe that material could be better worded. Maybe lose the word controversial. What do others think? It just seems like there isn't consensus. I will not revert again. --Mollskman (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you have a proposal for how it should be reworded? As I mentioned previously, the word 'controversy' was used by at least one major source, so if you object to that word, perhaps you could articulate you objection the word "controversial". Here is the original text, with the parts you removed highlighted in red:

"Particularly controversial was the $1,000 donation to the Family Research Council, listed as an anti-gay “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center. – MrX 16:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Truthsort has made a good catch here, and MrX has done a fine job of proving his point, by citing a source that talks about the FRC shooting and using that to synthesize a completely different point about the $1000 donation. I don't see where the hate group designation is salient to this article, other than reinforcing the leftist hagiography of SPLC, which is not a legitimate goal for this article. Edit summaries following Truthsort's first edit merely reinforce that some editors aren't here to write about CfA; they're here to push their POV concerning the sainthood of SPLC. Belchfire-TALK 17:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your insights BelchFire. The source I referred to was merely to point out that the words 'controversy' or 'controversial' are valid descriptors. After all, the name of this section is Controversy regarding same-sex marriage stance.

The sentence in questions is backed up by 12 sources, so no synthesis is necessary at all. In my opinion, the original sentence provides required context for the controversy. By removing words like 'controversy', 'anti-gay' and 'hate group' the reader is left with an impression that the controversy was caused by those uppity, chickin' hatin' gays. – MrX 17:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

This WP:STICK about the SPLC is getting old fast, especially when it occurs all over WP despite having been dealt clearly with in several places. a13ean (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

That conclusion wouldn't be too far from the truth, MrX, and if this article is properly balanced, that's where many readers will wind up. It's the balance part that's tricky. All of those POV-pushing descriptors you like so well shouldn't really be necessary, unless an editor is trying to steer the reader to a particular destination. Belchfire-TALK 22:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, that looks like a personal attack to me. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Everything looks like a personal attack to you. Belchfire-TALK 22:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

That's simply false, although many of the things you say are clearly uncivil and sometimes personal attacks. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Synthesis Claims

Despite the strong consensus we've built to include mention of the SPLC anti-gay hate group designation of the FRC, there is an edit war to remove it. Belchfire and the others are encouraged to explain their objection here rather than edit-warring over it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Since there are editors having a tug o war over claims of OR/synthesis, please describe your objections in detail.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I've yet to hear any convincing explanation of how it's synthesis. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Was that comment really necessary? I asked for explanations and your comment adds nothing. In fact, many of your comments are argumentative and whose only obvious value is to antagonize. Please stop it.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I concur, and it's just the latest incident in a lengthy pattern of claiming there has been no explanation, when it fact it's simply a matter of not accepting the explanation that's been tendered. Belchfire-TALK 23:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I personally don't know of any explanation, as I haven't been following this latest edit tiff, which is why I renamed this section and ask for some focused discussion.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, there are two concerns about this specific sentence:

"Particularly controversial was the $1,000 donation to the Family Research Council, listed as an anti-gay “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center."

The concerns being:

1. That the first few words and the last part of that sentence are somehow synthesized from the 12 sources, the implication being that they do not accurate reflect what the sources collectively reported.
2. The inclusion of the words 'controversial', 'hate group' and 'anti-gay' make the sentence POV, whereas omitting them makes the sentence neutral (or balanced).

The first point needs to be demonstrated. In other words, what conclusions have been made that are not borne out by reasonable review of the collective sources?

The second point is debatable, and can only be decided by consensus, compromise, or both.

– MrX 23:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

There's no synthesis here. The fact that it's a hate group is mentioned by the same sources that talk about CfA donating the money. Read the sources. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

None of the sources used to make that controversial claim for FRC makes the additional statement that FRC is a hate group. By defitinion, this is WP:SYNTHESIS as it makes a claim not specificall stated in the source, and it combines multiple sources together to complete the sentence. Classic synthesis of material to push a point of view. Arzel (talk) 05:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

That turns out not to be the case. Revert yourself and add this citation if it's not already there. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

That is a feedback loop. You can't use information from now to say that in the past something was controversial and use the current event as a basis of the fact in the past. Any source which makes the claim after this became an issue here at WP simply cannot be used as a RS for this claim since the new sourcing is being influenced by the current events and not related to the original reason why it was considered controversial. I am not sure where the policy discussion on feedback loops went, I will see if I can find it again. Arzel (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Arzel - that is a specious objection. There is no WP policy involved in feedback loops - as you must know having linked to just another Misplaced Pages article - and the sentence as it stands does not violate WP:SYN. Please stop flogging that dead horse. Alfietucker (talk) 06:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking at that sentence again, it struck me that not stating when then FRC was added to the "hate" list could be a problem as an unwary reader might think it was already listed when CfA made the donation. As I've argued earlier, the date of the listing on one level is neither here nor there as SPLC makes clear it is for activity by FRC (i.e. propagating malicious lies against the LGBT community) dating back at least to 1999. Still, I've made the amendment for the sake of factual accuracy re. when the listing was made. Alfietucker (talk) 08:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Alfie, when was the $1k contribution made? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Well it's listed on a 990-PF form for the year 2010, which may still suggest the donation was before the listing since it wasn't published by SPLC until the Winter 2010 edition of Intelligence Report. I admit, I was under the impression the donation was slightly earlier from the sentence in the article which included the phrase "between 2003 and 2009". Perhaps some other editor needs to check that this isn't misleading (I'm not familiar with how US accounting works). Alfietucker (talk) 09:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI, a $1,000 contribution to FRC was also made in 2009 per WinShape's 2009 Form 990. Because of the process of completing a 990 and having it posted online by an organization like GuideStar takes a number of months, it was probably that contribution that was noted in the Winter 2010 SPLC publication. 72Dino (talk) 13:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment I could be wrong, but I don't think any of the RS mentioned call the FRC a hate group. They attribute the claim to the SPLC, a noticeable distinction nonetheless.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I am going to remove it again as Synthesis of material. The wording implies that it was controversial at the time because of the listing by the SLPC as a Hate Group. None of the sources used even make the notation that the SLPC called FRC a hate group. Still argues that some sources have now made the link, but that is a clear feedback loop. Arzel (talk) 15:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Citations 38 and 38 specifically make this connection in the title of their articles.

From CNN: Shooting sparks controversy over ‘hate’ designation for conservative group

From the Washington Post: Family Research Council labeled a ‘hate group’ - Organization denies charge.

As a reminder, the sentence in question is "Particularly controversial was the $1,000 donation to the Family Research Council, listed as an anti-gay “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center."

To directly address your concerns, I propose this rewording: "WinShape made a donation of $1,000 to the Family Research Council. The Family Research Council has been listed as an anti-gay “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center since 2010."

– MrX 16:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

That's not too far from the sentence which was there before Azel's edit. I guess the problem is the phrase "particularly controversial". So, following the sentence "Of this, more than $3 million was donated primarily to Christian organizations with anti-gay agendas, between 2003 and 2009." currently in the article, I would suggest the slightly more succinct wording: "This included a donation of $1,000 to the Family Research Council, listed since 2010 as an anti-gay “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center." Alfietucker (talk) 16:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think that that would work very well, and should address the concerns. – MrX 17:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Another (IP) editor had already jumped in and reverted Azel's edit, so I have gone ahead and amended the wording. Alfietucker (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Alfie and Mr. X.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand the point of adding the SPLC's designation into this article when the reader can simply click the blue link and find out about it. This just seems like a POV attack. Truthsort (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll explain it to you. On Paul Ryan, there was a huge war about calling the National Review conservative. It's unquestionably so; that's how it describes itself. And it's relevant, as it shows how he got his career started writing for partisan news sources. Finally, it's a single word that conveys all of this background without expecting the reader to stop reading the current article just to click on a link and read at least the lead of the National Review.

So what was it fought over? Because conservative editors thought that a brief, factual mention of the periodical's conservatism was an attack. Frankly, this was an overreaction typical of WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality, but there you have it.

What's happening here is parallel. Good writing demands that we briefly explain who this SPLC is anyhow and why we should care. Partisan fears overreact to the possibility that the explanation is too positive or too negative or whatever. It's silly. We should just write a good article. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

So, you are comparing a self-described conservative magazine with an organization that never gave itself the "hate group" label? Terrible comparison. Truthsort (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It is a simple fact that the SPLC has designated the FRC an anti-gay hate group. It is a simple fact that the National Review is conservative. These are uncontested facts, and when they are relevant to an article that mentions these organizations, it is good writing to mention them. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Apparently there are still a number of people that do not understand synthesis of material. The wording as such implies that the donation was controversial because of the listing by the SLPC. However, none of the sources used to make the claim that the donation was controversial mention the listing. This is a clear cut case of using multiple sources to imply something that was not explicitly made by the sources. In fact, the listing was never mentioned in this context until after the shooting at the FRC resulting in a feedback loop. You cannot go back and say now that it was controversial because of that since it was not at the time. Additionally, this completely ignores that the $1000 donation is insiginificant compared to the total donations made. Arzel (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Or there are a number of people who reject the synth/OR argument as invalid. Please scroll up, this has been discussed in elaborate detail. The size of the donation is not relevant. – MrX 15:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Arzel, if I am reading your comment correctly (sorry if I'm not), you mention that the contribution was controversial only after the shooting took place. The listing by the SPLC and the contribution by the WinShape Foundation was controversial before the shooting, which is why the gunman brought 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches with him. It remains unknown if WinShape contributed to the FRC knowing this designation, especially when a contribution was made in 2009 before it was listed. 72Dino (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

StillStanding-247, it is also a fact that Dana Milbank criticized the SPLC's designation of FRC as a hate group. Why not mention that as well? Truthsort (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's why:

In a spirited interview, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank defended his stance that the antigay Family Research Council should not be listed as a “hate group” by the venerated civil rights group, the Southern Poverty Law Center, because they wear suits and “don’t wear white sheets,” and some of their founders and officials are “respected” individuals.

His reasoning is ridiculous. We would be obligated to explain his reasoning the the refutations, and that would take up much more space than this silliness deserves. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Attempt 2

I'm creating a new section because of all of the asides above. I'm talking directly to you Still. Do not fill up this section with "what else you got" or other rhetorical comments. Please stay on focus.

Let's look at the following sentences

Chick-fil-A has made about $5 million of donations via WinShape to groups that oppose same sex-marriage. Of this, more than $3 million was donated primarily to Christian organizations with anti-gay agendas, between 2003 and 2009.

and

This included a donation of $1,000 to the Family Research Council, listed since 2010 as an anti-gay “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Some editors seem to want the article to say to the reader “CfA gave money to a known hate group”. The 2nd sentence as currently crafted seems designed to give this reader that impression using Misplaced Pages’s voice. Yes the dates are listed and the reader could discern that CfA did NOT give money to a group that was at the time labeled a hate group (I’m assuming all of these sources are correct btw). Was CfA reasonably expected to know that the SPLC label was likely to happen in the future? Of course not.¶ One suggestion would be to split this 2nd sentence up into two and make clear that the designation occurred after the donation. That should fix the voice issue.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  13:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I initially supported splitting the sentence, but acquiesced to a suggestion that a more concise version was better. Do you have any sources that definitively state that the hate group designation came after the first donation from WinShape to the FRC? – MrX 14:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The 2009 donation per WinShape's Form 990 shows at least one contribution before the designation. 72Dino (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why this is an issue. We give the dates of the donations and the dates of the hate group designation, so there is no risk of the reader becoming confused. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It's an issue because the current phrasing is awkward and can easily lead the reader to a false impression. If it requires multiple reads to correctly understand the timing, then the paragraph needs improvement.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The biggest problem is that the writing is trying to imply that the gift was controversial because of the listing, not to mention that their is a group of editors that want to WP:LABEL these groups as being hate groups everywhere in WP. It is extrememly frustrating to see editors use WP for activism. Arzel (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Food and drink articles
• Unknown-importance Food and drink articles
• Start-Class Foodservice articles
• Unknown-importance Foodservice articles
• Foodservice taskforce articles
• WikiProject Food and drink articles
• Start-Class company articles
• Unknown-importance company articles
• WikiProject Companies articles
• Start-Class Georgia (U.S. state) articles
• Top-importance Georgia (U.S. state) articles
• Start-Class Atlanta articles
• High-importance Atlanta articles
• Atlanta task force articles
• WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state) articles
• Start-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• Unassessed Conservatism articles
• Unknown-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles