Talk:Chick-fil-A and LGBT people/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

why is there no examination of the concept of Boycott, and no links to the Boycott page ?

Boycotts are legal. Discrimination against a business based on an owners speech, likely is not. Oddly, the article does not adddress well known and pertinent issues — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.62.176.53 (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the announcements of blocking new stores are obviously noteworthy and should be addressed, but they're just one detail in the massive backlash, which mainly involves boycotting and online rabble-rousing (both quite legal as you point out). Presumably more non-bigots will edit this page soon, assuming it survives the deletion nom, and make it a bit more balanced. An article about this controversy that doesn't mention the boycotts (outside of one word in a sentence about conservative Christians standing up for their values by buying chicken, or whatever) makes about as much sense as an article about the moon landing that doesn't mention the moon. The boycotts are pretty much the entire story. MrBook (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

"Non-bigots"? The ones bigoted against gays or the ones bigoted against those with traditional values? Hopefully neutral editors will edit this page soon, I think, is what we really want. 72Dino (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

"Bigoted against traditional values?" Give me a break. No one chooses their sexual orientation, but people do choose to be hateful assholes; you cannot compare an individual rejection of a certain set of values to a collective denigration and state sanctioned persecution of a disenfranchised minority. 99.251.189.224 (talk) 00:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

This is not a debating society for your personal views gentlemen. Add in a boycott and response section. Use reliable sources from major newspapers/tv/magazines/etc., and write it objectively. Problem solved. Shadowjams (talk) 10:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Reaction by Public officials

The Jim Henson company and former Gov. Huckabee are cited in the public officials section. Their boycott/buycott actions are protected free speech, not free-speech chilling behavior carried out under the color of authority. More should be done to separate out actions that potentially violate the first amendment from actions that are themselves free speech. 173.213.244.96 (talk) 12:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Support

The "Support" section of the article is actually only about the "Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day". It should either be expanded to include a broader description of public support (and should be the primary place this is discussed), or it should be renamed to "Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day" and give a fuller account of this, including being more balanced (i.e. include opposing public reaction instead of just talking about the support for it). Ideas? Arathald (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

CfA and WinShape

I'm going to have to bow out of this for awhile for some real life things, but I did want to make sure editors are clear on the relationship between CfA and WinShape

1. WinShape is NOT the charity arm of CfA
2. There is no legal connection between the two. They are two separate legal entities.
3. CfA made donations to WinShape, not "anti-gay" organizations (I am quoting, hence the marks)
4. WinShape made, in 2010, contributions totaling $3.8 million. Of this amount, $1,000 went to Focus on the Family, $1,000 went to Exodus, $1,000 to Family Research Council, and the largest single amount of #1.2 million to Marriage & Family Foundation. Other large amounts include Berry College ($413,000) and Fellowship of Christian Athletes ($480,000).
5. CfA is the largest, but not only, contributor to WinShape
6. S. Truett Cathy and Dan Cathy are the unpaid president and vice president of WinShape.

Hope this helps with the wording. 72Dino (talk) 00:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not picky about the language we use, I just want to avoid giving the wholly incorrect impression that this controversy is because Chick-fil-A donated its profits in good faith to a charity which then turned around and gave the money to anti-gay groups. Legal relationship or not, these money transfers from Chick-fil-A to the anti-gay groups were intentional. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Almost gone. The wording may be complex out of necessity. Also a Private foundation (United States) works different than a Public charity. Lots of nuances and legal issues. You really can't say that CfA donated to these groups through WinShape. The common leadership of both organizations muddies the waters from a nice, clean separation, though. BTW, the new wording of the lede does sound more accurate. 72Dino (talk) 00:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I redid the lead again. It was too wordy and unreadable, and we don't need to explain all 5 points above in a single sentence, as long as we stay accurate, which I think my revision is. Perhaps someone wants to take a crack at spelling out the 5 points in the article itself. I agree that it is necessary somewhere in the article to get into all the nuances, but I don't think a single sentence in the lead is the best place to do so. MsFionnuala (talk) 01:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

In this vein, I changed the phrasing in the lead from "the company's donations to these anti-LGBT organizations through a foundation run by the company's executives" to "donations to these anti-LGBT organizations made by a foundation heavily supported by Chick-Fil-A and run by the company's executives". I know this is a little wordy, but I think it better represents the actual relationship of Chick-fil-A to the organizations in question. Arathald (talk) 01:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

It does, but consider the sentence as a whole.

Chick-fil-A's relationship with such organizations had previously been the subject of controversy, but COO Dan Cathy's public statements opposing same-sex marriage, and the coming to light of further details of donations to these anti-LGBT organizations made by a foundation heavily supported by Chick-fil-A and run by the company's executives, met with heated and varying reactions.

When the reader gets to that "met with heated and varying reactions," they've encountered so much already in the sentence that they need to go back to its beginning to remember what exactly it was that was met with said reaction. The sentence has 55 words in it and I count 9 prepositional phrases... that's too long. We ought to be able to come up with something better... MsFionnuala (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but my primary goal at the time was to correct potentially misleading phrasing. It's now well into dinnertime, and I have yet to start cooking, so I don't really have the time to rephrase it right now. If I have some time tonight and someone doesn't beat me to it, I'll take another look. Arathald (talk) 02:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Article quality

I have made some edits to the lede, for conciseness and readability. There were a couple of epic run on sentences. The rest of the article needs some attention also.

In my opinion, there are some excessive details in a few places. Perry's death stands out as one such irrelevant detail. What does it have to do with the controversy?

The last paragraph of Financial contributions to groups opposed to LGBT rights belongs in the Support and Oppose sections. The Support section seems to be underrepresented, or is there really that little support?

So far, the only notable thing that has occurred in terms of support for CfA is the appreciation day. If someone wanted to put in a couple more details, that would probably be OK. There is also the matter of columnists who criticized politicians for threatening to "ban" CfA from cities like Chicago and Boston, but that's not so much support for the company; it is more support of the 1st Amendment. MsFionnuala (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Finally, can we come to consensus on anti-gay vs. anti-LGBT. It should be one or the other throughout the article (except in direct quotes). Currently, anti-gay is used four times and anti-LGBT is used once. Once this is settled, we can replace phrases like "groups opposed to LGBT rights" with "anti-gay [or anti-LGBT] groups" MrX 13:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd vote for anti-gay, since that is the modifier that almost all the sources use. MsFionnuala (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe in the interest of neutrality, you should avoid the terms "pro-family" and "anti-gay" or "pro-gay" and "anti-family" where possible, and simply reword statements to something else. There are many shades of what these terms mean, and they are inherently very contentious. Dan Cathy would probably use the term "pro-family" to describe himself, and yet his opponents in a debate might also say they are "pro-family" as well. Dan Cathy might also not say he is "anti-gay", but merely against certain behaviors that are contrary to his religious teachings -- the whole idea of "hate the sin, not the sinner". The point is... these terms have an inherent bias, and their meaning is different depending on who is using the term. -- Avanu (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's up to us editors to neutralize the specific words chosen by reliable, third party sources reporting on these events. To do so would strip all nuance from the article, essentially sanitizing it. Neutral POV should come from representing all of the mainstream viewpoints, accurately and with due weight. — MrX 21:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to remind you that most of our sources will include bias, while Wikipedia's mission is to present an article that is neutral in tone. The terms are inherently biased, and just because a source uses the term "anti-gay" doesn't mean that the person or group is unequivocally 'anti-gay'. Like I ask you below, what is the standard we use for determining if a group is supposed to be 'anti-gay'? Reliable sources are only reliable when used in the proper context. If it is possible to use language that lacks bias, while still conveying the substance, we should be using that language, not inherently POV language. -- Avanu (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

With regard to the way that Avanu characterized Cathy's comments in the lede, I think it was a great way of succinctly summing up Cathy's comments while staying NPOV. If you take a look at the talk page for the original Chick-fil-A article, we had the exact same debates (traditional marriage vs. oppose same sex marriage/anti-gay vs. pro-family) last week here, here, here, here, and here. No consensus was ever reached. Previously I felt that "anti-gay" was accurate, but now, I don't think the encyclopedia benefits from the use of this term. I think that Avanu got it right. Problem is, some around here just want to be right. MsFionnuala (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

@Roscelese and MrX, could you work with me on this sentence? "Previously-reported details of donations from Chick-fil-A to the Cathy family-operated WinShape Foundation, which in turn made donations to other organizations". You seem to want the "other organizations" to be labeled "anti-gay". Do we have a list of which organizations we are talking about and what standard we are using to decide if they are "anti-gay"? -- Avanu (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Many of the third party sources cited in the article use the term "anti-gay" when referring to the benefactor organizations, as well as when referring to Chick-fil-A' stance, their executives' statements, etc. Some sources even use it in the titles of their news articles.

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. I don't think it's too far of a stretch to say that organizations who have publically voiced opposition to gay rights, would be labelled as "anti-gay." If the organizations have not stated such positions, then their inclusion in this article is beyond its scope. — MrX 22:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your answer doesn't address my questions. What is the standard for us calling an organization "anti-gay" in this article? A biased news article is not a reliable source for that description. What specific types of actions can be called "anti-gay" and how many of such actions render an organization on the whole "anti-gay"? If I am traditionally married and love my kids and my wife and say "I'd have it no other way", am I expressing love for my wife and kids or am I an anti-gay bigot? To me, the term "other organizations" and "controversial contributions" serve as neutral identifiers, without our article taking a side on the debate. To actually say that these organizations *ARE* anti-gay puts the onus on Wikipedia to provide a standard for this description, rather than saying "organizations which are considered to be anti-gay by (list of groups here)". -- Avanu (talk) 22:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify, point by point:

What is the standard for us calling an organization "anti-gay" in this article?

Whatever verbiage is used by the majority of the third party sources in their coverage of the topic is what should be used here.

A biased news article is not a reliable source for that description.

Sure it is. We live in a biased world. That's why several reliable, third-party sources are needed to get a relatively broad sampling.

What specific types of actions can be called "anti-gay" and how many of such actions render an organization on the whole "anti-gay"?

I think we have to defer to the reliable sources. Of course, I have my own opinion of what qualifies as "anti-gay", but I am not a reliable source.

If I am traditionally married and love my kids and my wife and say "I'd have it no other way", am I expressing love for my wife and kids or am I an anti-gay bigot?

Straw man?

To me, the term "other organizations" and "controversial contributions" serve as neutral identifiers, without our article taking a side on the debate. To actually say that these organizations *ARE* anti-gay puts the onus on Wikipedia to provide a standard for this description, rather than saying "organizations which are considered to be anti-gay by (list of groups here)"

I respect your view and that your intentions are to improve the article, but I just don't agree that our roles as editors is to neutralize identifiers that are used in our references. I do agree that the article should be neutral and I believe the way to achieve this is to represent all sides of controversy with due weight. — MrX 23:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

"I don't think it's too far of a stretch..." How far of a stretch would you say it is, MrX? MsFionnuala (talk) 23:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

According to WP:NPOV, it ís our job as editors to use neutral identifiers if they are available and will be understood by the majority of readers. Among things mentioned in WP::NPOV,

Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. ...

Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.

Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone.

I believe the term "anti-gay" is biased and disputed enough to run afoul of Wikipedia policies. If there is any viable alternative to this term, it should be used here. I see "anti-gay" as only appropriate if we can't find an alternative, and even then, only in a context such as "organization <X>, which is described as anti-gay by <whomever>", or "organization <X> , which is widely regarded as an anti-gay group". In addition, anti-gay in Wikipedia redirects to anti-LGBT, a term which is slightly less loaded and more neutral, so we should try using it instead. Even better would be to say that "organization <X> is widely regarded as being opposed to LGBT rights", or something equivalent to this. In no circumstance, however, should we directly say that any organization is anti-gay, anti-LGBT, or opposed to LGBT rights, unless reliable sources day so and there are no claims to the contrary made by anyone who is considered a reliable source of information on the organization, including the organization itself. (For example, since Chick-fil-A specifically denies being anti-gay in public statements, Wikipedia should, under no circumstances, directly claim that Chick-fil-A is anti-gay, but rather say that some groups consider Chick-fil-A to be anti-gay, despite its claims to the contrary. This is perhaps the most neutral way of treating this kind of assertion.) Arathald (talk) 00:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The key to neutrality here is attribution. Say who said what, so that Wikipedia renders no judgment in it's own voice. Editors saying "I prefer this term" or "I prefer that term" are merely revealing their own personal bias.

In every case where we offer that the company is "pro-family," we take pains to mention who said it. Statements that the company is "anti-gay" or has supported anti-gay causes should be - must be - handled in the same way. A little basic honesty goes a long ways here. Belchfire-TALK 00:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Firstly, my apologies for not commenting before/after my earlier revert - I was editing on my phone browser and it doesn't always cooperate. Anyway - Avanu, I'm not necessarily attached to the term "anti-gay," but we've got to replace it with something descriptive, something that conveys the reason for the controversy - "controversy happened because donations from Chick-fil-A to WinShape were passed on to other organizations" sounds like people were angry because WinShape didn't use the money in its own endeavours, rather than because the money went to organizations which work against LGBT rights. "Traditional marriage" and "redefinition of marriage" are also POV buzzwords that we should avoid in WP text.

Arathald, I disagree that Chick-fil-A's claim that it isn't anti-gay directly precludes us from ever calling it such regardless of how many reliable sources say so - refer to WP's treatment of white supremacist groups and so on - it is a question of sources. I think MrX's answers here are very a propos. Neutrality doesn't entail softening or suppressing reliably sourced facts because involved parties might contest them (and Avanu, trying to create our own standard for what constitutes anti-gay, rather than accepting reliable sources, is a WP:NOR issue). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I would say "traditional marriage" is a pretty clear and non-POV term, mostly because until the last decade or so, there was not generally any notion of marriage as being anything between people of the opposite sex. Even though homosexuality might be as old as prostitution, the idea of permanent homosexual relationships being formally recognized in the same legal manner as heterosexual marriage is a new concept. I suppose you could use the term "heterosexual marriage" instead of "traditional marriage", but I would tend to think that most people would know these two terms describe exactly the same thing.

As far as Wikipedia creating its own standard for what constitutes "anti-gay", that is exactly the problem I have been pointing out. Our declaration of these groups as being factually anti-gay, in Wikipedia's voice, is original research because we don't have unbiased sources that define a clear standard for this term, and we have biased and less biased sources that use other terms like "pro family".

As I said in my example of the husband complimenting his wife, the definition of what exactly is "anti-gay" is simply up to each person. We can generally set a threshold where it is probably nearly unequivocal, but even that might be contested. Westboro Baptist Church *might* be legitimately called "anti-gay", or one might say they are just opportunistic drama queens who need attention. The point is, just because a RS says "anti-gay" doesn't mean we get to repeat it as such. We can say "organizations which are considered to be anti-gay by (list of groups here)". -- Avanu (talk) 01:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that while, in general, especially in conversational English, saying that someone is "in support of traditional marriage" is a euphemism for them being opposed to same-sex marriage, it's not necessarily exclusively the case. See my comments on the Marriage CoMission above -- they are in favor of traditional marriages, but it's, at best, unknown (at least from our current sources) whether they are actually anti-gay. (I strongly suspect they are, but that's not exactly a reliable source...) Arathald (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Avanu - Without wanting to get onto too much of a FORUMish tangent, "traditional marriage" as practised for hundreds of years entails, in addition to a relationship between a man and at least one woman, the transfer of the wife as property from a father to a husband, no legal existence of the crimes of domestic abuse or marital rape, no legal rights of the wife over children and their bringing-up, and frequently the loss of all property rights on the wife's part. The groups and individuals in question may indeed support these things, but it is not the focus of their advocacy and it would be wrong to adopt their POV term because the marriages they support are traditional in one aspect. Possibly more to the point, supporters of same-sex marriage also support opposite-sex marriage, so it would be wrong to designate opponents of same-sex marriage as exclusively the supporters of opposite-sex marriage.

Arathald - it's precisely because of this ambiguity that the term should be avoided. If the Marriage CoMission advocates, for instance, that a wife should submit to a husband and not enter the workplace, it is better to state this than to use the (at-best) vague "traditional marriage". If we cannot find out what the group uses the term to mean, we should state that they identify with the term (ie. attribute POV language). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that seems like a perfectly reasonable approach to me to preserve NPOV. I didn't even think of the other implications of "traditional marriage", which makes me even less of a fan of the term in an encyclopedic context. Arathald (talk) 02:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that "controversy happened because donations from Chick-fil-A to WinShape were passed on to other organizations" is incomplete, and that there should be some mention that these groups are or are considered anti-gay/anti-LGBT/opposed to LGBT rights/whatever. To reply to your other comment, my point wasn't that we can't say it's anti-gay, but rather, we shouldn't make such a claim directly and equivocally unequivocally, especially without mentioning that the organization claims otherwise. If a white supremacist group claims not to be a white supremacist group, the appropriate treatment in Wikipedia, per policy, would be something like "<group> is widely regarded as being a white supremacist group, though it denies these claims in official statements", rather than "<group> is a white supremacist group", unless, perhaps, if there is absolutely no other debate about the status of such a group. In this case, there does appear to be some question and debate as to the exact "anti-gay" status of certain organizations in question (see other areas of this talk page for details), so we should be careful in our treatment of them, and prefer phrasing saying that they are considered anti-gay (or whatever wording we settle on) by media organizations/the SLPC/Equality Matters/whoever, or that they are widely regarded as anti-gay (as opposed to just saying "<group> is anti-gay"). Arathald (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I just thought of another twist... are divorce attorneys inherently anti-gay marriage or just anti-marriage or just attorneys who assist people in making a different choice for their life-partner-ship? In the same manner, is Dan Cathy "anti-gay" or is he simply in favor of different choices than other people are? Which particular statement renders you an "anti-gay" person versus just a person? I have a friend who used to volunteer for AIDS/HIV hotlines, and he said he finally quit because he got tired of how many preventable situations people called in with, and he didn't want to start becoming angry or negative with the callers and blaming them for their own dumb choices. Does that make him anti-gay because he stopped supporting something that is associated with pro-LGBT causes? -- Avanu (talk) 01:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Without taking sides and without going too far down this rather silly tangent, one word or phrase or action does not make someone pro-gay, anti-gay, pro-anything, or anti-anything. A pattern of behavior and/or attitude does. MsFionnuala (talk) 01:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, this is not a helpful line of conversation, since, as I said, it's not our call, it's the sources'. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course, it always goes back to the sources, but a source can be reliable for one thing and unreliable for another. It is about context and the final product we create here. I think the wording as I found it was lacking and I think it needs to be improved upon. If we are going to call these groups "anti-gay", it shouldn't be in Wikipedia's voice, which is what state it was in when I found it. -- Avanu (talk) 04:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Structure

The structure of the article into "Support" and "Opposition" would seem to fail WP:STRUCTURE "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents". -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Other gay rights issues

I don't think it's appropriate to go into all the issues in the article, but the organizations supported by Chick-fil-A also oppose antidiscrimination laws, anti-bullying policies, hate crime laws, same-sex parenting (partly through spreading false scientific claims about same-sex parenting harming children), LGBT people in the military, promote "conversion therapy," and have made statements advocating the recriminalization of homosexuality. SPLC's designation of FRC as a hate group is based in part, as well, on its spreading of false scientific claims about gay men being pedophiles. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

This section is a response to my edit here. The term "other gay rights issues" is vague without listing what those issues are. As noted in the edit by Roscelese above, there apparently are a number of issues. If we are going to state "other gay rights issues" then we should list them with sources. I recommend that we just use the term "opposing same-sex marriage" as that is sourced and that is what is relevant to this particular article. 72Dino (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

That isn't true. The sources state "anti-gay." Two of the three currently cited don't single out opposition to same-sex marriage at all. We use "opposition to same-sex marriage and other LGBT rights issues" because some users don't like "anti-gay." Conforming more closely to the sources would entail using "anti-gay," not taking a position on content that the sources don't take. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Which specific citations so I can re-read them? I re-read citation 13 from HuffPost Gay Voices and it did not specifically state same-sex marriage or any other issues. It just used the undefined term anti-gay. I think we should stick with the subject of this article instead of going into other issues. 72Dino (talk) 18:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Cathy's comments were specifically about same-sex marriage, but the donations, which were always part of the controversy, were not solely about same-sex marriage. If you think the title is unreflective of the state of affairs, you should propose re-titling the article, rather than removing material that sources consider relevant because it doesn't conform to the title! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

If you want to keep "other gay rights issues", then please list them with references in the article. I'm good either way. But the vague phrase "other gay rights issues" should not remain undefined. 72Dino (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's see what other users have to say. I'd prefer to avoid original research. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. 72Dino (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult to compile a list of citations to validate the list provided by Roscelese in her above post. The questions is, is such a list within the scope of this article, or can we assume that the reader will either take "other gay rights issues" at face value, or research it on their own by following the breadcrumbs in the references? From WP:NOTEVERYTHING, "an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". - MrX 19:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Financial contributions to groups opposed to LGBT rights

All of the references regarding Chick-fil-A donations to "anti-gay" groups seem to be ultimately coming from the same source (Equality Matters). This source picked several organizations that are politically active that have received some token donations from WinShape and then lumped them together with other organizations that have received much larger donations, and that may be philosophically opposed to gay marriage, but not necessarily politically active in this regard. A prime example is Fellowhip of Christian Athletes, which is a Christian youth organization, not a political organization. The term "anti-gay" implies that these organizations are using these huge donations to oppose same sex marriage, and the article even reflects this, but no proof of this is offered. H2O (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I'd consider $1.18 million to the Marriage & Family Foundation, or $994,000 to the Marriage & Family Legacy Fund "token." You must have more spare change lying around than the rest of us. MsFionnuala (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

But how were those donations spent? I believe those donations were primarily spent on marriage enrichment seminars, etc., not political activism. H2O (talk) 21:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Example - http://www.winshapemarriage.com/ H2O (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Educate yourself. [Fungible commodities]. Money is one of them. Donations to hate groups are donations to hate groups, period. SkepticAnonymous (talk)22:08, 4 August 2012

SkepticAnonymous, I've changed your latest edit to reflect what the source you cited actually says (it says "some", not "many", of these groups are recognized as hate groups, which have quite different connotations, and the source doesn't even mention the FBI considering these groups as hate groups). If you have other references that support what you originally wrote, please add those, otherwise your edits can be reverted as they are not verifiable. As a side note, please remain civil (i.e. don't attack the intelligence of other editors), and make sure you sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end. Arathald (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

fungible only works when the organizations are the same. Donations to Focus on the Family cannot then be used for adoptions services, nor vice versa.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 02:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Another reason I don't trust the Equality Matters report is that their research appears to be pretty sloppy. They cite the IRS form produced by the WinShape Foundation, but when you look at the form there are many more organizations and donations listed than what they outline in their report, basically an assortment of church, youth, and missionary related activities, even including a $1000 donation to an organization called Care for AIDS, that appears to be helping AIDS victims in Africa. If they really hated gays, why would they be supporting this organization? Of course, Equality Matters conveniently left that one out. One that they did list, New Mexico Christian Foundation, received a $54,000 donation, but if you look closer, this money appears to have been donated to a specific fund to help teach the Bible to people who can't read, not anti-gay activism. H2O (talk) 23:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to point out that AIDS is not necessarily linked with gay sex, least of all in Africa where the vast majority of people with HIV are heterosexual. So support of such an organization does not prove anything about a policy on gays either way. Alfietucker (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is what I have found about the aims of the Marriage & Family Foundation, formerly the Marriage & Family Legacy Fund. It doesn't appear to a political activist group at all, just trying to encourage traditional marriages. How is this a hate group? http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/topic/excellence_in_philanthropy/bubba_cathy H2O (talk) 23:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

According to the Equality Matters article, they are a founding member of the Marriage CoMission, a group that is supported by known anti-gay groups such as Exodus International. However, looking at the Marriage CoMission site, it appears that their focus is on strengthening existing marriages and decreasing the national divorce rate. I found no mention of gay marriage or even something to the effect that "the Bible defines marriage as between one man and one woman" (which is a stance that a lot of churches who certainly aren't hate groups hold, anyway, so this wouldn't be enough for them to be a hate group). Furthermore, we should only ever be calling an organization a hate group if it's officially recognized as such by a recognized organization, like the SPLC. Anything more is at best, original research, and at worst, slander. The only reference I found to the MFF being a hate group is the Equality Matters article, which is beginning to look more and more dubious the more I look at it. I'm a little skeptical now as to whether we can consider them a reliable source. Arathald (talk) 00:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The aim of this article is to explain the controversy. A controversy exists. That is a fact. A controversy exists because reliable sources such as CNN, HuffPo, The Daily Mail, the Orange County Register, AllBusiness.com, The Salt Lake City Tribune, and other reputable sources not in this article have reported that some people are upset with Chick-fil-A because they are under the perception that Chick-fil-A donated money to hate groups. Whether or not the groups are hate groups or not, or what the breakdown of the $1.18 million is is not relevant for purposes of this article. Wikipedia does not expose the truth, nor does it contain original research. It is not relevant if an editor "doesn't trust" the Equality Matters report. Reputable sources do, and *that* is where the articles come from, not the opinions of the editors. BTW, I don't think this article refers to MFF as a hate group, does it? MsFionnuala (talk) 04:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

You're right in saying that if reputable sources trust Equality Matters, then those reputable sources can be used as Wikipedia citations. I'm not sure that we should use Equality Matters directly as a source, but I have absolutely no problem with citing other reputable sources, even if they use Equality Matters as their only source. The fact they they themselves are reputable sources makes them good resources for this article, regardless of where they got their information (unless, of course, if where they got their information calls their reliability into question, which I don't think is the case here). The problem we've had so far is that Equality Matters has been used as the only source for some claims in this article, and it, in and of itself, I don't believe is a reliable source. These need to be cited directly, instead of Equality Matters. As an aside, some of the claims I removed haven't been backed by *any* of the sources cited. I don't have any problem with claims backed by reliable sources. To be perfectly clear, my personal views correspond most closely to Equality Matters, so any criticism I have of them and their views is purely objective and in response to Wikipedia policies, rather than any POV bias. Arathald (talk) 05:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Title?

Hands-down the worst title I've seen on any wiki. 68.227.166.94 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Not a helpful comment, but yes, the title could use some consensus work. I don't fault the originator for it though, as it doesn't seem to have a definite title yet. Perhaps we can look to other political issues involving corporations to draw some similarities and be as objective as possible. Shadowjams (talk) 06:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The thing that makes it really awful is the flagrant editorializing of throwing "freedom of speech" in there. "2012 Chick-Fil-A same-sex marriage controversy" adequately describes the event, and is already plenty convoluted if it HAS to be convoluted. MrBook (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and move it to something very close to that, since both the AfD discussion and the discussion here seems to agree. Shadowjams (talk) 23:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Good deal. Btw, to anyone who cares, some nimrod took advantage of the open editing on talk pages to edit my post to reverse the phrases "same-sex marriage" and "freedom of speech," making it look like I'm on the side of the homophobes. Very classy. In case anyone isn't clear on this, editing someone else's words on a talk page is very bad form and frankly sleazy. I'm changing it back now. MrBook (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

MrBook, while it was wrong for someone to change your words the way that they did, it is disturbing that your bias is so readily apparent by labeling someone a "homophobe." That is a slur. Most Americans who oppose safe-sex marriage are not "homophobes." They are simply following their own moral, religious or cultural norms and beliefs. It also insinuates a particular bias when an editor of the article slurs like you have. Ccchhhrrriiisss (talk) 23:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, the old "We're the real oppressed ones now" argument. I've been hearing it more and more here in the U.S. since the black President came in. I won't pursue this debate beyond this last comment, since this page is for talking about the article and not arguing, but I do want to say that you are wrong and you should rethink your position. Being homophobic because your religion tells you to does not mean you're not homophobic. Bigotry is bigotry, no matter how you paint it or what excuses you have for it. And there is nothing wrong about calling you out on it. MrBook (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Interracial marriage

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

---

Since traditional marriage in the United States forbid interracial marriage on Biblical grounds until the 1960s, has Cathy clarified that he also opposes interracial marriage? It would be audacious of him to accept such a recent definitional change made by man. Or has this issue not been explicitly addressed?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Not something we can discuss in the article without sources, but, of course, yet another reason we can't accept "traditional marriage" as a phrase in WP prose. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Plus, what Milowent said above simply isn't factual. But I agree with you, Roscelese, that "traditional marriage" isn't as precise as other terms might be. -- Avanu (talk) 06:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with Roscelese this time. Simply saying "marriage", with no modifiers, serves quite nicely to describe what Cathy supports. The rest is nonsense - there is no Biblical prohibition against interracial marriage. Belchfire-TALK 07:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't entirely follow this. "Dan Cathy supports marriage" doesn't really tell me anything at all. Do you intend this to mean that he financially and idealogically supports organizations that are devoted towards such things as lowering divorce rates? If so, we should explicitly say that instead of using more vague wording. As for "supporting traditional marriage", while this could mean a lot of different things, I think we're all very well aware that this is almost always used as a euphamism to mean "against same-sex marriage", though I do agree that the phrasing is potentially misleading, ambiguous, and quite inexact, and should be avoided on Wikipedia, if at all possible. (Also, due to the nature of the term, I would be wary of interpreting someone "supporting traditional marriage" to mean they necessarily oppose same-sex marriage -- the latter point should be cited explicitly.) Arathald (talk) 07:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me try this again, since after reading over what I said earlier, I realized that I don't agree with what I just wrote. "Supporting traditional marriage" is sometimes used as a euphamism to mean "opposed to same-sex marriage", and it's often spun that way, but could also mean things like working to reduce divorce rates. While most people who "support traditional marriage" don't likely agree with same-sex marriage, this really isn't too important in a context like this unless they actively do something about it. Basically, I agree with all three editors above me that "supporting traditional marriage" is an ill-defined, and potentially loaded, term which we shouldn't be using. Arathald (talk) 08:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• "what Milowent said above simply isn't factual"? What? It surely is. Bible verses allegedly about "race mixing" were thought to clearly forbid interracial marriage. But it appears my question has not been covered by reliable sources so deserves no place currently in the article.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 10:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the part that wasn't quite factual was that interracial marriage was forbidden in the US until the 1960s. Laws which made interracial marriage illegal were ruled unconstitutional in 1967, but there were many states who allowed it prior to 1967. It would be accurate, though, to say that interracial marriage was forbidden in the Bible Belt until 1967, though. Neither here nor there with respect to the article, though. MsFionnuala (talk) 12:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

And the history of racism in the New World (or even the Old World) is quite a distinct one from the history of marriage. It isn't factual because such laws only arose much later (than the 1500's) and the goals were not necessarily biblical as much as simply being about control. -- Avanu (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

One could claim that the issue of same-sex marriage is very similar, if you just replace "racism" with "homophobia" (I'm not actually making that claim here -- I'm not trying to start a debate on that :) ). More to the point, though, I don't think the vast majority of reasonable people would hear that someone is in support of "traditional marriage" and think that the person is against mixed-race marriages. The term isn't a technical one, and can't be taken at its most literal meaning; it's effectively a buzzword. Arathald (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, and one could claim that horses and cars are the same by replacing the word "hooves" with "tires", but you'd look pretty silly if you tried it. This whole idea is built on a faulty leap of logic and I'm not seeing any sources being discussed. The person who started this section is imploring us to do OR as a group. Just say 'no'. Belchfire-TALK 17:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's why he started this section. I think he started it to point out the fallacy of using the term "traditional marriage," and he did a good job of it. MsFionnuala (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Point made? when the person says they support "traditional marriage" we need to be very careful to accurately attribute what they specifically say or have good third party sources that are specifically decoding and calling out their dog whistles. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• WP:NOTFORUM. Somebody should either roll out a source and propose edits to the article, or archive this off-topic discussion. Belchfire-TALK 18:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire, you appear to be missing the point which has been made: which is that none of us can assume that "traditional marriage" is an unambiguous term with a single meaning - therefore, as RedPen has summarized, we have to be scrupulous in attributing what is specifically said by anyone using that term. To be aware of this is totally apposite to this article and the process of writing and editing it. Alfietucker (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I agree that this discussion seems rather pointless, plus it's based on a mendacious assertion I have read the bible and I have never read anything laws that prohibits interracial marriage If I'm wrong than please quote and cite until that then there is nothing to discuss. Algonquin7 (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Whether the Bible prohibits interracial marriage or not is a red herring: the point is that even in American history "traditional marriage" is a term fraught with differing assumptions, depending on who uses the term or even hears the term. As a matter of fact, there have been people and even institutions who in the past have believed the Bible forbade interracial dating and marriage (see [1] re Bob Jones University: "The school's administration believed that the Bible prohibited dancing, movies, jazz, and rock music, as well as interracial dating and marriage." That's as late as the 1970s!). That's arguably not the fault of the Bible, but the fact remains that's how it has been interpreted in the past, and perhaps still is by certain individuals. Anyway, the point is that "traditional marriage" is not a term with a single definition, and so it is unsafe to simply use it without clarification according to relevant citations. Alfietucker (talk) 18:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It looks like I got the point, but missed that Milowent was intentionally making that point (and this is why I shouldn't Wikipedia at 2am...). Agreed. As an aside, my point above was that the Bible is also commonly interpreted as forbidding same-sex marriage in much the same way, and this stance is also disputed by some Biblical scholars (including ones with fairly literal interpretations). That's also a red herring though, and I agree with Alfietucker's point. Arathald (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Again I asked where in the bible it forbids interacial marriage, just because Bob Jones university falsely claims it does does not make "eht troof"(Something Belchfire made clear to me) that was never in the bible, yet there are passages that seem to forbid homosexual marriage and homosexualtiy such as Leviticus. Traditional marriage clearly means a marriage between one man and one women; hence the "traditional" part of the name gay marriage is not steeped in tradition and ask any gay marriage supporter to define traditional marriage (such as myself) and the answer it is between one man and one woman. This trying to make out that traditional marriage has a ill-defined meaning is the "red Herring" here, there is nothing murky about it's defination that is why anyone defining a marriage between one man and one woman they say "traditional marriage" not "biblical marriage" or any other concievable term. Algonquin7 (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Requested move

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

---

2012 Chick-fil-A same-sex marriage controversy → Chick-fil-A same-sex marriage controversy – I don't think "2012" ought to be in the title of this article, as part of the article content refers to events from 2011. Also, I don't think there are articles named 2010 Chick-fil-A same-sex marriage controversy, 2011 Chick-fil-A same-sex marriage controversy, etc.. There's no reason for the qualifier IMO. MsFionnuala (talk) 01:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

No support or oppose at present, but I would recommend against rewording the lede to conform to the new title until consensus for the new title is achieved. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support, but for slightly different reasons than mentioned here. Not only are the specific events discussed not constrained to 2012 (though they certainly came to a head this year), but I also think the article should discuss, in a more general sense, the controversy, rather than being about a specific events surrounding that controversy. I feel like we're barely skirting WP:NOT#NEWS right now. Arathald (talk) 01:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Became a matter of public interest in 2011 and will likely continue well beyond 2012. Jokestress (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Jokestress Fasttimes68 (talk) 03:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support - A larger scope would benefit this article. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 06:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - admittedly after the above. In my personal opinion, and that is clearly all it is, I think the article might be even more appropriately titled Corporate culture of Chic-fil-A. This controversy, which is itself probably notable, seems to be, as per the main article, at least in part due to the personal opinions of the CEO, and it is to my eyes at least as important to point out the underlying causes behind the controversy, which would include that material. In a sense, this would be similar to an old move discussion regarding whether we should first have an article about the persecution of Falun Gong or the history of Falun Gong, including its persecution. The latter is more or less a primary-level spinout, with the former, perhaps more directly notable, but also of what might be seen as a secondary-level spinout. Also, while this controversy is itself clearly notable, I am less than sure that it is necessarily the only such controversy Chick-fil-A has been involved in. If that is true, having an article on "corporate culture" which could summarize all those controversies, including this one, which might still have enough material for a separate secondary-level spinout, might be maybe the most obsessively rational way to go. John Carter (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
• Sure, do it. Speciate (talk) 17:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. This has been going on since 2010, and I bet that it will go on for atleast into 2013. Nw2k (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Seems precise enough.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 20:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Arathald and Jokestress --VikÞor | Talk 01:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - I would support a move to 2012 Chick-Fil-A controversy. It's a much cleaner title, and the broader points of the controversy can be introduced in the lead. Most people who search this article already have an idea of the broad points anyway. The reason I suggest this "clean" title is because it's slightly biased, as some restaurant supporters view it as a "freedom of speech" issue, while gay rights supporters view it as an act of aggression against gay rights. Furthermore, there are corollary controversies regarding the role of municipal governments regarding corporate acts of either free speech or special interest group funding, organized boycotts and customer support days, and other issues. All in all, I think the title 2012 Chick-Fil-A controversy will be more inclusive of the main issues, side issues, and future concerns that might come up. Boneyard90 (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support Honostly I hate the fact that people keep adding the year in front of every new article which makes us have to go through these mundane RMs. It's not needed and leads viewers to believe that there are similar controversies from other years.JOJ ^Hutton 05:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I didn't think there would be too much argument on this, but the article itself has been very contentious, so that's why I made this an RM as opposed to just being bold. MsFionnuala (talk) 10:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support I think "2012" is completely unnecessary in this context Bgoldnyxnet (talk) 06:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support As was said before, this issue has and will span beyond this calendar year. Packers715 (talk) 17:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Assertion that "Chick-fil-A did not contribute "via WinShape". "

My recent edit to the Financial contributions section was rolled back by 72Dino, with the assertion that "Chick-fil-A did not contribute "via WinShape". The company CfA, among others, donated to the foundation. The foundation made the contributions highlighted."

• I wrote: "Since 2003, Chick-fil-A has made about $5 million of donations via WinShape to groups that oppose same sex-marriage."

• The direct quote from the Forbes article was: "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..."

So my question is: are these not almost identical in meaning? If so, does anyone have reliable third party sources that refute the Forbes article statement and validate 72Dino's assertion that "Chick-fil-A did not contribute "via WinShape"? Also, I think it was a little heavy-handed to revert the entire edit. I was also trying to clarify a wordy, circuitous couple of sentences, without altering their meaning. I am going to go back and make those edits, while this is discussed here. - MrX 15:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the article has really got to stop pretending that Chick-fil-A's involvement is all some kind of mistake. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, we need only make hay of things that actually are worthy of being made hay. -- Avanu (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec)First, my apologies for being a little heavy-handed with reverting. There was a lot of content added and, with all the back-and-forth that has been occurring on this article, I thought it best to revert back to the original wording. The Forbes reporter did state that, but she clearly does not have an understanding of how 501(c)(3) corporations work. However, it is possible that this falls under "verifiability, not truth". I'm going to revert my edit for now pending further discussion. (I've been trying to save this edit for awhile, but it looks like the Wikimedia servers are having issues). 72Dino (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you 72Dino. I was experiencing server issues as well. I was trying to also add this:

This [ABC News article] supports my edit "What people might not realize is the extent to which Chick-fil-A has funded organizations with radically anti-gay messages through its charitable arm, the WinShape Foundation,..." - MrX 15:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

In my mind, there is no question that Chick-fil-A funds these various organizations through WinShape. If you go into a Chick-fil-A restaurant, you will see posters on the wall about WinShape and the various charitable activities in which they are involved. They fund youth camps, college scholarships, foster homes, Christian missions work, and a variety of other activities. http://winshape.org/ Many, if not most, of these organizations, are philosophically opposed to homosexuality on religious grounds. Very few have been actively involved in opposing same-sex marriage, and these have received very small donations in comparison. I would suggest that the donations given to these organizations is probably less than 1% of the entire budget of Winshape. It is clear to me that Equality Matters has cherry-picked organizations who received donations (such as Fellowship of Christian Athletes) where they could find something inflammatory and extrapolated this into making the entire organization out to get gays. In my opinion, this article runs the risk of becoming just another tool being used to aid and abet a smear campaign rather than explaining the controversy in an objective manner. H2O (talk) 23:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Those are valid points. Here is breakdown that I found [[2]] (which, btw, I'm not claiming to be a reliable source, but there is a link to a tax return [here]

In 2010, WinShape donated $1,974,380 to a number of anti-gay groups:

• Marriage & Family Foundation: $1,188,380
• Fellowship Of Christian Athletes: $480,000
• National Christian Foundation: $247,500
• New Mexico Christian Foundation: $54,000
• Exodus International: $1,000
• Family Research Council: $1,000
• Georgia Family Council: $2,500

[Winshape 2010 Publicly Available IRS 990 Form via Foundation Center, accessed 6/27/12]

Who knows how much of this $1.9M was actually used for anti-same-sex marriage activities. Perhaps the above breakdown could be incorporated into this article to lend some additional clarity. MrX 00:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

What makes each of these groups "anti-gay"? I don't particularly like painting with the broad brush, especially in Wikipedia's voice. -- Avanu (talk) 00:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

H20, can you back up your "suggestion" that the contributions represented less than 1% of WinShape's budget? If you take a look at the 990 form, you'll see that the number is quite a bit higher than that. Earlier on this talk page, you said Equality Matters' seemed to be "sloppy." Let's take care not to be sloppy ourselves when throwing out numbers in this discussion. MsFionnuala (talk) 01:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

We have to be careful about engaging in original research when making assertions like "contributions to anti-gay groups were only X percent of WinShape's contributions" and so on. It may be true, but if we have to crunch the numbers in their tax returns ourselves, we can't say it. Do we have secondary sources for these statements?

The wish to include the material seems to stem from a desire to make sure people know that WinShape's efforts aren't entirely in the anti-gay direction. But I don't think we need to worry about giving that impression - the WinShape article is clear that they engage in many other activities. It is simply that not all of their activities are controversial (which, H2O, is why Equality Matters, an LGBT rights organization, highlighted some of the anti-LGBT recipients of Chick-fil-A money). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I looked at WinShape's return a few days ago. I don't have it handy at the moment, but I believe their annual budget was something like $14 million. Of this, I think I saw only a few thousand dollars in what I would consider political activism, notably Family Research Council, Georgia Family Council, and I think maybe one other. Needless to say, these organizations are involved in other activities besides opposing same-sex marriage, so I don't know that these donations even went to that purpose. Equality Matters considers Exodus International to be anti-gay, even though their stated purpose is to help gays. They see Fellowship of Christian Athletes as anti-gay because they believe homosexuality is sinful and don't allow practicing homosexuals in leadership. Not aware of any political activism by this organization in this regard. [[3]] They consider the Marriage & Family Foundation to be anti-gay because they are a part of a large consortium of Christian organizations called the Marriage CoMission [[4]] trying to help strengthen heterosexual marriages through marriage counselors, trying to prevent divorce, and improve communication between marriage partners. Exodus International is also a member of this consortium, so that makes them anti-gay. National Christian Foundation [[5]] is a donor-advised fund. They support a large number of organizations including some that oppose same sex marriage, but also many other causes. I really don't know what the funds went toward, but it cannot be assumed without verification that the funds went to oppose same-sex marriage or other anti-gay activities since the donors advise where to send the funds. The New Mexico Christian Foundation is the New Mexico branch of the same organization. The return did state that these funds ($54,000) went toward the International Orality Network project. The purpose of this is to teach the Bible to people who can't read. Obviously another anti-gay donation! H2O (talk) 04:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I love how you conveniently left out the third large portion on the "what we're doing" section of the Marriage & Family Foundation's website... "Opposing Homosexual Behavior as a Protected Class, and the phrase where they state that "no evidence of discrimination exists." MsFionnuala (talk) 10:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The link you posted is to the Family Foundation of Virginia, founded in 1985, according to their web site [[6]] NOT the Marriage & Family Foundation, based in Georgia, originally founded as the Marriage & Family Legacy Fund, sometime after 2007. [[7]] The first Google link that pops up isn't necessarily the right one. H2O (talk) 12:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

CORRECTION: the 2nd link I posted above was a duplicate of the the first one. Here is the link I intended to post. [8] It explains a little about the formation of the Marriage & Family Foundation around 2007. H2O (talk) 02:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the other political organization that I saw in the IRS 990 was the Georgia Public Policy Foundation, which received $1000. The form states that the annual budget for Camp Winshape is $5.0 million, Winshape Retreat - $4.1 million, Winshape Foster Homes - $3.2 million, Winshape Marriage - $2.2 million. Combined donations to verifiably political organizations total $4500 (Family Research Council, Georgia Public Policy Foundation, Georgia Family Council. If you want to add Exodus in there, then make it $5500). $5500 / $14.5 million = 0.04 % of their total budget. Not saying we have to put that in the article, just trying to provide a little perspective. WinShape is primarily a charitable organization. H2O (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually Roscelese, it isn't Original Research to take one number and extract another number from it using percentages, etc. It is just math, which is pure logic. The concerns you bring up *might* relate to the NPOV policy, but not original research, if it is purely mathematical conclusions that you have reached. -- Avanu (talk) 04:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think WP:CALC applies here when the intent behind the math is clearly to imply a statement not made in the document whence the numbers come, ie. that hay is being made of nothing, etc. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

See, you see my point exactly. :) -- Avanu (talk) 05:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I do think it's OR in addition to being POV. Between the primary nature of the document and the calculation result's not being an obvious reflection of the source (there are plenty of mathematical calculations we could add, the source doesn't suggest any of them) it's analysis of a document by users instead of by secondary sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it violates the original research policy to use original research rather than to put the research into the article; for instance, to do research to show that a source is unreliable, or that an accusation is false, and then to apply our policies about unreliable sources and false accusations.

If the above research is anything close to correct, we have an organization which is the subject of widely publicized and believed false accusations that can be traced back to an unreliable source. What should Wikipedia do in this situation? I don't think letting it stand as is is correct. You should at least find sources that state that the accusations are false or misleading (and why), and include those in the article so you're not reporting only one side of the controversy. If nobody is willing to fix the article like that, then the material should be deleted--not because deleting it is good, but because deleting it is at least less bad; deleting it is worse than making it balanced, but having it unbalanced is even worse than deleting it. Ken Arromdee (talk) 21:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're arguing here. What accusations are you saying are false or misleading? No one has accused Chick-fil-A or WinShape of donating solely to anti-gay organizations. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Claiming that Chick-Fil-A donates to anti-gay-marriage groups when less than 1% of the money is used to oppose gay marriage is misleading, and any source who makes that claim has ceased to be a reliable source. The fact that they never claimed the money went solely to that may mean their claim is literally accurate, but a claim can be literally accurate and misleading at the same time; most people would understand "they gave money to oppose gay marriage" to be some substantial percentage. Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Would you like to propose another way of phrasing the same information that doesn't engage in original research about how much of their budget the anti-gay contributions were? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, "no original research" just means we can't insert a statement into the article saying "the anti-gay-marriage contribution is tiny". It does not mean that we can't take that into account when making editorial decisions. What we should do is at least:

1) Any source which does make the inaccurate statement should be treated as an unreliable source, and should not be relied upon for facts about how much Chick-Fil-A contributes. This includes mainstream news sources that merely copy an unreliable source without fact-checking it first.

2) If we need to mention the false accusations because the false accusations are notable, we should hunt down a source that rebuts the accusations and which we are allowed to quote. If we can't even do that, then just delete them--which is bad, but not as bad as leaving the article unbalanced. Ken Arromdee (talk) 22:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The trouble is, Wikipedia simply doesn't work like this. It goes not only by the consensus its editors, but - more fundamentally - by the consensus of reputable sources (such as news published in The Wall Street Journal, The Boston Globe, The Washington Post etc). For an editor to decide which of such reputable sources is "unreliable" is itself OR. If you want to write the "truth" as you see it, as opposed to the consensus of reliable sources such as the "quality press", publications by reputable firms and peer-reviewed articles, then Wikipedia is not the place to do this. Sorry. Alfietucker (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

More information on reliable sources can be found at the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources guideline. Also, if there is a concern about the reliability of a source in a particular situation, the topic can be brought up at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. 72Dino (talk) 22:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Ken, I think you have it right to the extent that content policies that apply in mainspace don't apply on talkpages, so you can validly present original research for the consideration of other editors. However, they have to agree with your analysis for it to have any effect on the article.

Here is where I think you have it wrong with your analysis. You're trying to gainsay the editorial stance of the sources, which you just can't do. If you can show that they are wrong on matters of fact, that's one thing. You seem to be taking the stance that the donations of the trust to anti-gay charities need to be taken in the context of the overall donations, in which context they are relatively small. But there is no reason that the sources should have to take that view and there's nothing "sloppy" about the fact that they don't.

To give an analogy. Let's say you found out that WMF had given $500 to the Ku Klux Klan. You'd feel outraged and cheated, right? There's no way you'd say to yourself "well, I guess in the context of a $20m budget that's small-fry". Am I right? Formerip (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

If Wikipedia gave $500 to the Klan, I would describe it truthfully. I would either quote the number 500, or if I truly thought the number didn't matter, I would say "Wikipedia gave money to the Klan" without bothering to mention a number at all. Describing it as "Wikipedia gave $20 million to Klan-related groups" would still be misleading, and basically a lie, even if the other $19,999,500 went to an inactive Klan member who used the money to lobby the government for subsidies to the tobacco industry and not for anything Klan-related. 208.65.89.142 (talk) 10:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the issue of where the money goes after it is donated to an organization is another red herring. Unless it can be demonstrated that Chick-fil-A has control over how its donations are spent by the organizations it gives donations to (unlikely, I would think), then the donations are understandably taken by the wider world as evidence of blanket endorsement of that organization's activities and policies. Alfietucker (talk) 10:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

What "activities and policies"? An organization can take a stand on an issue while conducting no activities against it at all. Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I suppose one example would be the Family Research Council spending $25,000 to lobby the US government on a bill which, among other things, condemned Uganda's practice of executing homosexuals. MsFionnuala (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I was asking what activities were conducted by the groups that they gave millions to and that therefore can justify a claim about millions of dollars--not the groups which we have already established above that they gave 0.04% to. Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record, FRC did not agree with the idea that homosexuals should be executed. [[9]] H2O (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

""FRC did not lobby against or oppose passage of the congressional resolution," the group said. "FRC's efforts, at the request of Congressional offices, were limited to seeking changes in the language of proposed drafts of the resolution, in order to make it more factually accurate regarding the content of the Uganda bill." "FRC does not support the Uganda bill, and does not support the death penalty for homosexuality - nor any other penalty which would have the effect of inhibiting compassionate pastoral, psychological, and medical care and treatment for those who experience same-sex attractions or who engage in homosexual conduct," the group adds." H2O (talk) 15:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

That's the difference between using CBS News as a source and some guy's blog. 72Dino (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

True. Although virtually every homosexual person out there would characterize fostering "psychological, and medical care and treatment for those who experience same-sex attractions or who engage in homosexual conduct" as an activity/policy which is against homosexual people. As in such activities have a goal of eradicating such "conduct," to borrow FRC's term. MsFionnuala (talk) 18:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

But virtually every person, homosexual or not, knows the difference between a thousand and a million. While that is certainly anti-gay activity, it doesn't justify a statement that Chick-Fil-A gave millions of dollars to anti-gay activity. They only gave a thousand dollars to FRC. The millions went to groups that take an anti-gay position but don't have any anti-gay activity. It's like claiming that someone who made a large donation to Obama before he changed his position on gay marriage "gave millions of dollars to groups that oppose gay marriage". 208.65.89.142 (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you point to the place in the article where it says that CfA gave millions of dollars to anti-gay activity? That's not what the article says. The article says it gaves millions to groups which are opposed to LGBT rights, and that is perfectly accurate. MsFionnuala (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

A statement that someone who gave to the Obama campaign last year "gave millions of dollars to a group who opposes gay rights" would also be "perfectly accurate". But it would be misleading, since it implies that the group is active in opposing gay rights and that the money is used as part of that activity--not that the group just made a policy statement and that the millions was spent on something else. Making the statement about Chick-Fil-A now would be no more accurate than making the statement about an Obama donor in 2011. Ken Arromdee (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The difference is that no nationwide controversy exists with such contributions from the Obama campaign, and so that's not a valid comparison for purposes of this article, which is what the discussion is about, the article. If you want to go edit this article and write something like, "... controversy erupted when millions misconstrued contributions from Chick-fil-A to groups that spent the money on something other than opposing gay marriage," find yourself a source and knock yourself out. Until then, we need to stick with the sources in the article. MsFionnuala (talk) 00:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you can find sources that comment on someone's donation to the Obama campaign by linking it to the issue of gay marriage, then that may well, subject to WP:WEIGHT, belong in their article. Wikipedia's job is to report the controversy, rather than to either invent the controversy or, on the other hand, ignore the controversy because we feel it is a load of baloney. Formerip (talk) 00:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

We shouldn't be making misleading implications ourselves any more than we should be quoting them. Readers will read the article and come away from it thinking that Chick-Fil-A gave millions of dollars to groups who then used the millions for anti-gay activities. That isn't true. It does a disservice to our readers to write articles in ways which make them think things that aren't true, regardless of whether the words are literally accurate.

It's still far from ideal, but you could start with something like "...had donated thousands of dollars to actively anti-gay organizations, as well as millions to organizations that took an anti-gay stance." Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Chick-Felay, worth mentioning?

http://blogs.wsj.com/canadarealtime/2012/08/08/226/

http://www.newser.com/story/151750/oops-chick-fil-a-drama-deals-blow-to-chick-felays.html

Just curious if this is worth a mention or not... -- Avanu (talk) 03:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, the Berenstain Bears are under attack now.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9469231/Gay-rights-come-to-Toy-Town-as-Chick-fil-A-battle-continues.html

-- Avanu (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Well in any manner, the Telegraph is a reliable source for donations not only supporting "anti-gay" groups, but "aggressively anti-gay groups". -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Information regarding the Berenstain Bears controversy added to the wiki. ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Where should this info be placed? Is it opposed to Cathy's comments based on the 80,000 signers, or supporting of Cathy's freedom to speak based on HarperCollins comments? The opposition/support is based on the comments by Cathy, not on same-sex marriage. 72Dino (talk) 23:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Support or Opposition?

80,000 people sign a petition demanding that Barenstain Bears be removed from a CfA promotion.

Publisher HarperCollins says "No," pointing out that CfA is exercising its First Amendment rights.

To my mind, this is unambiguously in the "support" column. HC is standing up to a lot of pressure here (and properly so, since, as a publiser, HC itself is the beneficiary of those very same First Amendment rights). Trying to frame this as opposition is nothing but spin. Belchfire-TALK 00:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, the petition itself is opposition to CfA, and HarperCollins standing firm is support, although it's more an expression of support for the First Amendment than for CfA itself. Splitting this across the two sections, as I did in the article, is a little awkward, as Belchfire mentioned on my talk. Honestly, I wouldn't lose any sleep if we just removed the whole thing, since I'm not certain how to do it accurately and elegantly. I dunno. MsFionnuala (talk) 00:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The last sentence of the Opposition section should be moved below to the Support section. As a bonus, we wouldn't have to use a word like 'aforementioned'. - MrX 00:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, to be fair about it... 80,000 people signing a petition IS significant, and if the story is notable enough to mention (I think it is), we can't very well put that part in the support column, can we? My primary objection was that the HarperCollins statement was truncated in a way that minimized what they are saying, and then the whole thing was stuck in "Opposition", which isn't right either. So, splitting it seems to be the way to go. We just need to come up with some creative writing to make it flow better. Belchfire-TALK 01:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Someone else write it because my brain is stuck on the aforementioned word. ;) MsFionnuala (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I made just a basic fix. The story is still developing and it seems likely that more details will come out, so we can always flesh it out and patch it up a little better later, when there is a little more info to work with. Belchfire-TALK 01:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Its not really support or opposition, HC is just not changing its relationships due to the controversy. Pretty similar to Rush Limbaugh advertisers who have not pulled out nor endorsed Limbaugh's views. (By the way, I can't help but mention that the Berenstains' themselves were not in a biblically approved marriage. Stan was a Jew and Jan was Protestant,[10] so this marriage was forbidden under traditional rules.[11][12])--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• This just goes to highlight the reason why the current non-encyclopedic, "oppose"/"support" structure is specifically called out as an inappropriate structure within the policies. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment, Red Pen of Doom. The article would benefit from a structural change, for NPOV as well as flow and cohesiveness.

I propose that we recast the Opposition and Support sections into sections similar to this:

• Reaction

• Local government reactions
• Boycott (assuming we can group petitions and college reactions into this?)
• Chick-fil-A Appreciation day
• Vendor reactions
• ?????

• Impact to Chick-fil-A

I'm not sure these are the right sections, but it would be a step toward a making this a more encyclopedic article. The overall flow of the article should probably be chronological. - MrX 14:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed - certainly the principle of having a main subsection 'Reaction' and then sub-dividing material by topic, rather than by whether it is 'pro' or 'anti' Dan Cathy/Chick-fil-A's position on gay rights, seems sensible and clearer than what we have at the moment. Alfietucker (talk) 14:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That organization looks like a good starting point. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Great. I would be willing to take a stab at reorganizing the content later today, and then posting here for discussion, unless someone else wants to get an earlier start. - MrX 16:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Draft restructring

It wasn't that difficult after all. Here is a draft:

Draft restructuring of Opposition and Support sections
That looks really good, thanks. One comment. The term "progressive groups" is maybe not neutral (?). Formerip (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Impact to Chick-fil-A On August 8, Rasmussen Reports published the results of a telephone survey indicating that 61 percent of likely voters held a favorable view of Chick-fil-A, while 13 percent indicated they would participate in a boycott.

Comments

Other than rearranging content, the only other changes are the addition of the very first sentence "Dan Cathy's statements..." and a very slight rewording of the HarperCollins sentences to make them fit together better.

A concern that remain is that there are "reactions" that pre-date Dan Cathy's statements. This raises the question about the scope of the article and whether it should include event that pre-date Cathy's statements. - MrX 17:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That looks really good, thanks.

One comment. The term "progressive groups" is maybe not neutral (?). Formerip (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

(response to MrX's comment) I think what happened is that Cathy's statements caused the donations to come back to the front; that is, more people were aware of the donations as a result of his comments. I don't really know how we express that in a sourced fashion in the article, but the donations are the main problem for a lot of people, including myself. His views are his views, but when they manifest themselves in the form of such donations, that's where many people have an issue. I don't think it's appropriate to remove information about the donations. MsFionnuala (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the problem identified by MrX, that some of the reactions pre-date Dan Cathy's statements - I suggest perhaps we should have as the opening sentence of Reaction: "The publicizing of Chick-fil-A's contributions to groups opposed to LGBT rights, reinforced by Dan Cathy's statements, resulted in several reactions from both sides of the controversy." This would cover reactions both pre-dating and following Dan Cathy's statements. Alfietucker (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

"both sides" terminology falls back on the issues the rewrite was intended to address. There are multiple sides and views ranging from "the comments are good and represent wholesomeness" to the "comments are bad but allowed by free speech" to "the comments are bad and free speech does not mean speech free of consequences" to "the comments are bad and represnation of something we do not wish to be associated with." and many more. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough - perhaps, then: "The publicizing of Chick-fil-A's contributions to groups opposed to LGBT rights, reinforced by Dan Cathy's statements, provoked several reactions, some of them translating into statements and actions either supporting or opposing Chick-fil-A as an establishment." Perhaps this sentence could be sharpened up, but again it covers with reactions predating Cathy's statements, this time without suggesting it was an "either for or against" situation. Alfietucker (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse This re-write would be a big improvement as it fixes a lot of disjointedness and slap-happy, one-liner editing over the last few weeks. Belchfire-TALK 16:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse nice work! MsFionnuala (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

All good very points, Formerip, MsFionnuala and Alfietucker, and thank for weighing in Belchfire . The rest of the article (especially the lead) may need some tweaking to broaden the scope to include all of controversy related to CFA's opposition to SSM, which I believe dates back to at least the 1990s.

Some guidance would be helpful as to when it is appropriate to incorporate the major changes in the collapsible box above, as well as those discussed here in the Comments section. Should we be bold and make the edits now or wait until we hear from more of the active editors of this article? I don't think the changes should be viewed as controversial, but who knows. - MrX 16:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Be bold. Follow the example of how Jokestress handled the main article a little while ago. She just went in and started changing it, and in the end, people seemed happy with her changes. MsFionnuala (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the support. - MrX 17:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

References

Policy change is an illusion

They may have stopped directly donating to anti-gay groups, but they're still holding fundraisers for anti-gay groups.[13] 24.214.230.66 (talk) 04:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. If you read the actual press releases by CfA or the foundation, it is clear that they are merely restating their pre-existing policy on donations. Can't understand why some editors do not want the full quotes up. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

"Anti-gay?" Or pro-marriage? It depends on how you look at it. Objectively speaking, just because leaders in the Gay Rights Movement decided to pursue same-sex marriage as a policy goal does not mean that groups which oppose redefining marriage are all-of-the-sudden (and practically overnight) "anti-gay." Truthfully, there are many gay Americans who do not favor redefining marriage and prefer Civil Unions or private, interpersonal contracts. 204.65.0.20 (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

There are no "pro-marriage" groups in the US except for those that fight against divorce, help to smooth out the difficulties in marriage, help with childcare, aid for financial troubles, mending the problems that led to separation, etc. Any bald statements about being pro-marriage, in the absence of actual positive work on marriage, are anti-gay marriage statements. Binksternet (talk) 17:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no absence of actual positive work on marriage. http://www.winshapemarriage.com/about-wsm.html H2O (talk) 06:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)