Talk:Chalcedon Foundation

Newly created/added cat is POV/OR

Adding new cat Category:LGBT rights opposition is not appropriate here for reasons stated on the cat's Talk page section entitled, "Cat violates Wiki policy?"

Further, as illustrated on Concerned Women for America, the cat may be controversial, and cats are not used for controversial material. The existence of controversy evidences the cat is inappropriate for the page. In particular, WP:CAT says:

Particular considerations for categorizing articles:

• It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. Use the {{Category unsourced}} template if you find an article in a category that is not shown by sources to be appropriate, or the {{Category relevant?}} template if the article gives no clear indication for inclusion in a category.

Obviously, it is not "clear from verifiable information in the article" if the wiki community keeps removing it.

I urge and support removal of the cat, else I urge the addition of either or both cat templates shown above from WP:CAT.

I am repeating this on all pages in which this new cat was added so communities there can discuss. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The similar category Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights has been added. Now, even if it gets renamed to something more neutral, we still have a problem with sourcing and relevance. The SPLC's hate group designation is based on statements by Rushdoony, but doesn't quite any publications of the Chaldecon Foundation. Hence, we cannot say that the organization as an organization is anti-LGBT or whatever. It would need to be reliably sourced. StAnselm (talk) 07:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The Institutes of Biblical Law is a publication of the Chalcedon Foundation - states itself to be so, as do reliable secondary sources like [1]. Restoring category. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I think you misreading the source. It says that CF publishes the Chalcedon Report, and that it "began to gain momentum" with the publications of Rushdoony's Institutes. It doesn't say CF published the Institutes - indeed, the The Institutes of Biblical Law article says it was published by The Craig Press. StAnselm (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The book's subtitle is "A Chalcedon Study" and you really need to be splitting hairs to argue that a source which states that Rushdoony's foundation gained momentum from the publication of Rushdoony's book is insisting that the book was unrelated to the foundation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I never noticed that before. The preface says it was made possible by the "Chalcedon publication fund". It doesn't mentioned the "Chalcedon Foundation" at all. I suspect they are legally distinct entities. StAnselm (talk) 02:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

In any case, we still need more than just the SPLC listing to include the category. It shouldn't be too hard to find something. StAnselm (talk) 02:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The book is sold by the Chalcedon Foundation. – MrX 02:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. And volumes 2 and 3 were published by Ross House Books, which was later merged into CF. But that in itself doesn't make CF "standing for" anti-LGBT rights. To add the organization to the category as proposed we need far more than a bare association. Of course, it's rather hard to find what CF stands for specifically - their belief statement is almost entirely about what they don't believe. StAnselm (talk) 02:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

It is not at all hard. Their website contains dozens of articles about how terrible they think judges and teachers are for creating anti-bullying policies and legalizing same-sex marriage and so on. Let us end this charade of the Chalcedon Foundation standing for fuzzy bunnies. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is something current, from their web site:

He did not want his organization to be seen as involved in any way with the Chalcedon Foundation because Chalcedon’s position is theological, based on a conviction that God’s law is the law. He found particularly off-putting our reminder that the Bible describes homosexual behavior as “worthy of death” (Rom. 1:32).

and

The homosexual rights movement has used this kind of tactic to some degree by promoting the idea that the Nazi German regime persecuted homosexuals. Indeed, some homosexuals were persecuted, and even ended up in concentration camps. Thus opponents of the homosexual rights movement, such as conservative Christians, can be lumped together with Nazis due to their shared opposition to homosexuality. Right? Just as the homosexuals were persecuted by the Nazis in Germany during the 1930s and 1940s, so also they are being attacked by conservative Christians in Canada, the US, and other countries today. The Christians are following in the footsteps of the Nazis. Thus Christians can be made to feel awkward by being identified with a position held by the Nazis.

and

There is much valid material in this volume to make it worthwhile for distribution to others. Readers will find answers to many arguments that are raised and will be reminded that the Bible clearly testifies against homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

I could go on like this for hours, but I'm not going to.

I wonder if you even tried to do a simple Google search to see if what Roscelese has been demonstrating all along, might actually be true. It seems as if you believe it's your prerogative to police articles for perceived affronts to you POV, without actually contributing to make them better. I would respectfully offer that this kind of behavior borders on WP:DISRUPTIVE. – MrX 03:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Bear in mind what it says in WP:CAT, "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having." In other words, we look at what is in secondary sourced when we do the ctaegorization, not so much the primary sources. StAnselm (talk) 03:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You mean like the defining characteristic that would get the nation's leading authority on hate groups to add Chalcedon Foundation to the list of anti-gay hate groups? Insomesia (talk) 05:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, the SPLC doesn't mention any CF publications - they made their listing solely on the basis of Rushdoony's book. Furthermore, if you do a Google Books search for the Chalcedon Foundation, the LGBT stance doesn't seem to come up. Which is to say, I'm not sure how prominent it is in their thought, either in their own writings, or as presented in secondary sources. After all, Rushdoony believed in the death penalty for all OT capital crimes. Homosexuality gets the barest mention in the his article. StAnselm (talk) 06:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, that sounds like you're engaging in original research. Of all the people who would speak on their thoughts and processes you really don't come to mind. Insomesia (talk) 06:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean my comment that "LGBT issues are not prominent in CF's publication"? Yes, that would certainly be OR, and I wouldn't dream of adding that assertion to the article. But we don't have a reliable source either way. Which brings us back to the categorization - there isn't sufficient support to add it. StAnselm (talk) 07:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I do agree that like all categories there should be content to support the category in the article so that likely should precede. Insomesia (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The SPLC's opinion of Rushdoony is not particularly significant

User:Insomesia added the sentence The SPLC also wrote that Rushdoony opposed interracial marriage, enforced integration, and was a Holocaust denier, which I have now removed. Quite apart from the fact that to say Rushdoony "enforced integration" is just plan silly, the SPLC's view of Rushdoony isn't all that significant. Don't get me wrong - the SPLC's listing of CF as a hate group is important, and that should be in the article, along with a reason why they listed it. But here's the thing - CF was listed as an anti-gay hate group. So comments about racism and holocaust denial aren't particularly relevant. StAnselm (talk) 10:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

This was a part of their assessment of the group as a hate group, I guess we should spell that out more. I reworded it so it's clear it has to do with the hate group listing which you agree is important. Often those who display homophobia are also racists or hatred towards other minorities so this is unsurprising. Insomesia (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's get consensus here first, shall we? The whole context of the report was a listing as an anti-gay group. The article currently explains why they listed them. Their other passing comments are not necessary. Remember, Chalcedon Foundation didn't publish the book. StAnselm (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Nope. It was as a hate group. And it's original research to separate out his racism. I wish you'd get consensus to remove this before edit warring. Insomesia (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you understand about WP:BRD. The idea is you add something, and if someone disagrees with it, you discuss it with them in order to gain consensus, and then you add it back in. StAnselm (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

My experience with you is that you delete first or until you get the version you prefer, then explain yourself if compelled. Perhaps my experience with you has just been isolated and usually you discuss concerns and arrive at consensus first. In any case this is sourced material about why this group is considered a hate group and its dishonest to present it as only an anti-gay issue. That's false and an insult to readers. Insomesia (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Hang on, I was the one who started this thread. Why didn't you wait for a consensus before you added the material back in? StAnselm (talk) 00:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's just agree that you have it the way you want and now we are discussing. So ... please explain why this sourced content explaining Chalcedon Foundation's designation as a hate group that explains it was also due in part to his racism should be suppressed. Insomesia (talk) 00:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The article cited is "A Dozen Major Groups Help Drive the Religious Right’s Anti-Gay Crusade". It is specifically about anti-gay groups, some of which are also hate groups. There is no suggestion that Rushdoony's perceived racism is what "bumps" CF from being "merely" anti-gay to being a fully-fledged hate group. No, it is particularly described in the source as an anti-gay hate group. Which is why the other issues are unnecessary to include. StAnselm (talk) 00:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It's listed as an anti-gay hate group, calling for the execution of gay people, but SPLC also lists the racism and Holocaust denial in their explanation...it's not our place to decide they didn't really think it was important. Compare this source - again listed in anti-gay groups, again with racism and antisemitism foregrounded as additional reasons. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point. I added a line about their other bigotry.[2] I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs. It is not directly relevant to the hate group listing (which is specifically as an anti-gay hate group) and SPLC is only really relevant as a critical source in relation to the hate group listing. For more scholarly criticisms of Rushdoony, see the Rousas John Rushdoony article. StAnselm (talk) 20:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

And please do not add fake references. It wasn't what the SPLC said at all. StAnselm (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Pumping

I removed a POV tag[3] that was placed for the following stated reason:

phrase "continuing to pump out" is POV to say the least. Is this attributable? I don't even see this in the ref

If you look at the citation[4], you find that the pumping line is an exact quote from the lead.

In the future, please do adequate research before tagging. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. The "pumping out" designation refers to those groups that republish the work of Paul Cameron. It is a generic reason that doesn't apply to the Chalcedon Foundation. CF was listed for a different reason - namely, a belief in the continuation of Old Testament death penalty laws. StAnselm (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's what the source says:

Even as some well-known anti-gay groups like Focus on the Family moderate their views, a hard core of smaller groups, most of them religiously motivated, have continued to pump out demonizing propaganda aimed at homosexuals and other sexual minorities. These groups’ influence reaches far beyond what their size would suggest, because the “facts” they disseminate about homosexuality are often amplified by certain politicians, other groups and even news organizations.

The article goes on to list the Chalcedon Foundation among these smaller groups. The comment is very clearly not limited to Cameron. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

First of all, it's a generic reason, like the "propagation of known falsehoods" one. As I've argues elsewhere, it shouldn't be used at all. But what exactly is the "demonizing propaganda". It's not the call for the death penalty, is it? Is it the use of the word "abominators"? If we don't know, then we shouldn't include it. StAnselm (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

ISS, the phrase "pumping out" is indeed POV. That fact that it was a quote, means it should have been in quotes already, instead of using Wikipedia's voice. The latest version of the article has this phrase properly attributed. This is why we use tags in the first place. And FYI, not every tag requires a TP entry -- especially since a major rewrite is in progress by Mr. X. who I'm confident would addressed the matter.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks like you have no objection to keeping the attributed quote. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually I do. That statement is too generic and aimed at 18 groups. If criticism is to be made, it should come from the section in that ref that spefically deals with Chalcedon and not paint the organization with the same brush as 17 other organizations.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. StAnselm (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

It's the lead of the article, so it applies to everything in it. I reject your argument as absurd. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The section in question is not in the lead. Are you posting in the correct section?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The quote is from the lead of the cited source. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

And after reading the section, there is plenty of negative information that could go into this article (assuming that is the reason for ISS deisres to have the pump language included) that is far more unflattering than the original statement in question.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The fact that the SPLC's verbatim statement is viewed as POV is not a valid reason for not including it if it is properly attributed and if it adds necessary content. Also, the word 'generic' is misnomer. What I think is meant is general. A general attribute can apply to 18 groups. It was not made as an exclusive statement, therefore can apply to everything that follows it. In any case, if it needs to be change, please change it. Deleting it is not constructive. – MrX 21:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I made substantial edits to this article and I think I was very careful to properly attribute statements to the people or organizations that made them. While copyright considerations require paraphrasing, I have stayed as close to the sources as possible, without trampling on others' copyrights. "pumping out" is SPLC's phrasing. It may be POV, but not on the part of the editor. Feel free to paraphrase it, while retaining the meaning. However, removing large portions of sourced content and moving source citations because of two words is not productive. In fact, it's disruptive.

There needs to be more effort to actually improve the article by including more or better information, or by revising for clarity, MoS, style, readibility, structure, flow, concision, etc. Efforts to remove sourced content for no other reason that the personal POV is disruptive. – MrX 21:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly when we mustn't paraphrase. The SPLC opinions must be presented exactly as is. And it's all very well to say that you've worked hard adding stuff to the article, but if it isn't relevant or helpful, then it hasn't improved the article. A comment about the hate group listing, and a note about the death penalty for "homosexual and other abominators" (being the reason for the listing) is all we need from the SPLC. StAnselm (talk) 21:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to write a blurb up from the specific section on Calcedon from the SPLC ref. Why be generic when we can be specific?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Reconstruction

Here is the relevant cite from the SPLC ref.

The Chalcedon Foundation, named after a 451 A.D. council that proclaimed the state’s subservience to God, was started in 1965 by Rousas John Rushdoony, who is known as “father of Christian Reconstruction” theology. Led by Rushdoony’s son, Mark, since the elder Rushdoony’s death in 2001, the foundation continues to push for the imposition of Old Testament law on America and the world.

Reconstruction, as described in R.J. Rushdoony’s foundational 1973 book The Institutes of Biblical Law, is opposed to modern notions of equality, democracy or tolerance — instead, it embraces the most draconian of religious views. Rushdoony supported the death penalty for homosexuals, among other “abominators.” He also opposed what he called “unequal yoking” — interracial marriage — and “enforced integration,” insisting that “[a]ll men are NOT created equal before God” (the Bible, he explained, “recognizes that some people are by nature slaves”). Rushdoony also denied the Holocaust, saying the murder of 6 million Jews was “false witness.”

Rushdoony’s Reconstruction is indeed radical, even including “incorrigible children” among those deserving death. And virtually all of his works remain for sale on the Chalcedon Foundation website.

Today, most fundamentalist leaders deny holding such views. But a Who’s Who of the religious right — including Tim and Beverly LaHaye (see Concerned Women for America, below), Donald Wildmon (American Family Association, above), and the late D. James Kennedy (Coral Ridge Ministries, below) — once served alongside the elder Rushdoony on the Coalition for Revival, a group formed in 1984 to “reclaim America.” Rushdoony reportedly was also a member of the secretive Council of National Policy, a group of archconservative leaders.

The key is we must attribute the issues the SPLC found with Reconstruction. A smorgasboard if you ask me.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The SPLC is a reliable source. We need to cite it, but don't need to attribute it for factual claims. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The important thing is that criticism (or perceived criticism) must be CF-specific. We need to be careful about saying that CF is Reconstructionist and Person X says Y about Reconstructionism. That would be original synthesis, and that was the reasoning behind the coatrack tag. StAnselm (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

So I disagree with this edit. The previous version stated very clearly why CF was hate-listed. The new version talks about Reconstructionism and Rushdoony, but not directly about CF. StAnselm (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The criticism has to be attributed and accurate. If the lead of the SPLC's argument makes a statement that applies to the CF, we may use it. What we're not allowed to do is synthesize, but that's not what we're doing here. As for the edit you just expressed disagreement about, at least it's trying to accurately reflect the reasons for the hate group designation. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I restored my edit, but to the correct section. I also fixed some text in there. I expect it might get reverted, but wanted to save a good copy in the edit history while we work this out.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I would think that endorsing slavery is more significant than opposing interracial marriage, so I'm wondering why you kept the latter but not the former? Also, see below for a quote about stoning, which I believe is relevant. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realize I removed that. I thought I had that in my section which is why I replaced the entire graph. Feel free to add it.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

That's ok. I have to go for a bit, so feel free to add it in my absence. There's also more material along the same lines below, in that quote about stoning. Finally, there's currently some duplication from where you moved the passage to another section; please delete one. I'd prefer to keep some of the material with the SPLC hate group section. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

It is pretty apparent that the Chalcedon Foundation and Christain Reconstruction go hand and hand, and this is backed up by abundant sourcing. I wouldn't call this a coat-rack, because there is only one peg on the wall.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

That's correct. Rushdoony is considered to be the father of Christian Reconstruction. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Tagging

First, if you add a tag, you need to immediately open up a section to discuss it. Failure to do so may result in the tag being summarily removed. Second, this tag is bogus. Yes, there are sections on Reconstructionism and Dominionism, but they're combinations of brief background information and specific ties to the article subject. In short, the tag does not belong. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll back off from this issue for the moment - the other one is more important. StAnselm (talk) 20:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Batting zero

This edit is also a mistake. First, you removed the entire sentence instead of working on its citations, which is what you objected to. Second, the SPLC did indeed point out racism and sexism, but I added an additional citation to support the sexism. You need to revert your mistaken edit and then leave the article alone; you haven't made one good edit here all day. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what "batting zero" means. There are four issues here - one is the racism, which I have argued above to be irrelevant, since it does not directly impinge on the hate group listing. Secondly, there is the sexism, which is not present in the 18 Anti-Gay Groups and Their Propaganda article at all - where did you get it? The third is attributing a primary source to a secondary source. Finally, to add a bit about "rejection of female equality", attributable only to a primary source is not allowed on Wikipedia. StAnselm (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a baseball term. It refers to failing to hit the ball over and over again. Each of your edits has been harmful or destructive.

1. Racism is relevant in that it contributes to the hate group listing. Read what the SPLC says on this.
2. Sexism is relevant and is supported by an additional citation, just in case it's not clear enough in the SPLC.
3. I have no idea what you're talking about. Be more clear.
4. Actually, we are allowed to use primary sources.

In the meantime, revert your changes. It's as if the two of you have this article under attack, deleting anything you personally dislike. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

1. I have already commented extensively on this.
2. Not only is it unclear in the SPLC source, it isn't there at all.
3. I'm sorry for not being clear. You said The SPLC also notes ... a rejection of female equality and backed it up, not from an SPLC source, but from a CF article.
4. Please read WP:PRIMARY. StAnselm (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

1. Diffs or it didn't happen.

2. The SPLC says:

North has called publicly for the execution of women who have abortions. Stoning, he has said, would be the preferable method because "the implements of execution are available to everyone at virtually no cost."

According to Clarkson, Rushdoony, who is North's father-in-law, also suggests the death penalty be used to punish those guilty of "apostasy (abandonment of the faith), heresy, blasphemy, witchcraft, astrology, adultery, 'sodomy or homosexuality,' incest, striking a parent, incorrigible juvenile delinquency, and in the case of women, 'unchastity before marriage.'"

I'm going to suggest that this SPLC citation supports, among other things, sexism.

3. See immediately above.

4. Thanks, I've done so. What part do you believe is relevant? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

It is, of course, acceptable to use primary sources, as long they are used carefully and as long as the editor does not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate the material. There are a number of statements from Chalcedon Foundation's website that could be used in this article, especially when they are used to corroborate information in other sources. – MrX 21:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Calvinism

This project is tagged for Wikipedia:WikiProject Calvinism. I have placed note on the talk page there about the discussions and rewrite concerning this article. StAnselm (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Proselytizes

Contrary to this edit, "proselytizes" is a neutral word when applied to religious doctrine. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Except it wasn't used in the sense of "evangelism", as in the Proselytism article. StAnselm (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You mean where it says, "it now refers to any religions' or religious individuals' attempts to convert people to their beliefs or even any attempt to convert people to another point of view, religious or not"? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

In any case, "promotes" is a much better word. StAnselm (talk) 01:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with ISS about the neutrality of the word. It's not a perjorative as far as I'm aware. And the word is a better description, though I don't have a major problem with "promotes".  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Quite apart from any negative sense, it usually means to win converts to a religion or denomination, not persuading people to a particular viewpoint within a religion. StAnselm (talk) 09:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

To remind you: "or even any attempt to convert people to another point of view, religious or not". I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

And the article notes that the World Council of Churches' document "uses proselytism in the negative sense only". StAnselm (talk) 09:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. When did Wikipedia join the World Council of Churches? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 10:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

SPLC rationale in lead

As with a number of other articles, User:Insomesia has tagged the SPLC listing in the lead, as needing a rationale. Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, Heterosexuals Organized for a Moral Environment and American Family Association have had the generic reason added, Illinois Family Institute and Parents Action League have an organization-specific reason, while the tag was removed from Family Research Council without change. And organization-specific reason would be vastly preferable, so I suggest, "for its advocacy of the death penalty for homosexuals". StAnselm (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, the designation doesn't appear to be just to be soley because of the Calcedon's position on homosexuals, so this is not appropriate. The tagging isn't a controversey like it is for the Family Research Council, so an explanation of the controversey in the lead is not required per MOS. Why don't we just leave it as they are labeld as a hate group byu the SPLC?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that that was bit selective. It should either be short and ambiguous as it is as of LGR's edit, or should be expanded to encompass all of the major reasons. I don't really have a preference myself, but there seems to be a tug-of-war in all of these SPLC-hate-group-related articles. I wonder if we can have an RfC to address them all at once. I've been having a similar discussion with Arthur Rubin. Until this is addressed more globally, I think it's going to remain a bone of contention. – MrX 17:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

This is all related to the efforts of some editors to make the articles about organizations that are obviously anti-gay undue in weight. I've no idea where one would even call an RfC for this, as there is no master article.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  18:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't think a rationale is at all necessary. StAnselm (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)