Talk:Chick-fil-A

Discrimination and anti-gay views and affiliations of Chic-Fil-A

I think it worth mentioning in this article the controversy this company has in its associations with N.O.M. and other hate groups designated by the Southern poverty Law Center.

98.198.63.94 (talk) 02:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)JustinTexas

I am not a fan of the anit-gay mention previously in the original company description at the top of the article. Although CFA has certainly entertained some controversy, there is no definitive acknowledgment of anti-gay views by the company or its founders. What is generally referenced as a national endorsement of an anti-gay group was in actuality an isolated incident in Pennsylvania by a local restaurant owner. If worth mentioning in this article, it should be included in its own topic section, referencing the "2011 Anti-Gay Controversy Involving Chick-fil-A" (Austinlee22 (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC))

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Austinlee22 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Chick-Fil-A donated nearly $2 million to Christian anti-gay groups in 2009. This one year total is double the amount of all their donations to anti-gay groups from 2003-2008." Chick-Fil-A Donated Nearly $2 Million To Anti-Gay Groups In 2009 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.39.101.244 (talk) 14:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering why nothing about the info linked above is included here. It's pretty significant to this article. Jbbdude (talk) 02:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Jbbdude - Anyone can edit this article, it's not under semi-production. If there's an error in the article, you can fix it. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 03:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I undid the edit of Shearonink. Shearonink combined things that are not directly related. The add on I put in is about Chickfila, through their group, gave money directly. Shearonink tried to put that in the middle of a story about a single Independent franchise owner giving food to another group. One is about the company as a whole the other about a single franchise that did something on their own. --216.81.81.80 (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The information and section have now been edited for clarity and readability as some statements were unsourced, plus one of the sentences was too long & had too many clauses. Per Good practices on talkpages, I would also suggest to the above poster that they comment on content, not on the contributor. --Shearonink (talk) 19:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to add my support for this addition. I disagree with having the homophobic allegations added to the beginning of the article, but a section in the article is more than appropriate. I looked up this page as a model to determine whether or not homophobic allegations should be added to the Domino's Pizza wiki page, and finding it here has proved helpful in determining whether or not such a suggestion would be appropriate, or whether it would be banned for "advocacy". Sdegan (talk) 05:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I question whether it is objective to characterize the company as anti-gay. It seems to me that just as there is a difference between being anti-racial minority and anti-affirmative action there is a difference between being anti-gay and anti-same sex marriage. Objectivity requires not conflating the two. Based on the citations in that section, the most accurate thing would be to say that they are anti-same-sex marriage and that they support organizations that oppose adding sexual orientation to equal protection requirements. The former is definitely more emphasized than the latter. Smisathe (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

"Anti-gay" is far too subjective. They support groups which believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. That, in and of itself, is no more anti-gay than being opposed to abortion is anti-woman or being opposed to affirmative action anti-black.--Dudeman5685 (talk) 23:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

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

"Anti-gay"

I challenge the sourcing for "anti-gay". The AllBusiness source is an opinion article. The Salt Lake Tribune source quotes protestors who say they're anti-gay; the paper doesn't say it itself. And HuffPo is not a reliable source for these matters. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The sourcing there could be better, but it is accurate to call WinShape "anti-gay", as demonstrated by these references: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. Gobonobo ^{T C} 16:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Those are all lefty blogs or gay news sites. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

No they aren't. Besides, "gay" news sites are still reliable sources. Gobonobo ^{T C} 22:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Qsrweb.com is the oldest online portal for fast-food industry news and information in existence. It is quite obviously not a "lefty blog or gay news site". 42farms (talk) 23:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• An ongoing Chick-fil-A flap -- which has gay rights groups blasting the restaurant chain for donating food to an anti-gay marriage group -- may be a fleeting controversy for a privately held company that is more accustomed to fiercely loyal patrons and generally positive press coverage.
  • Fast-food fallout: Donations to anti-gay marriage group spark Chick-fil-A flap CNN. Chicago Tribune [Chicago, Ill] 07 Feb 2011: 3.
• Focus St. Louis and the Clayton Chamber of Commerce canceled a planned presentation by Dan Cathy, president and COO of Chick-fil-A, after complaints that Cathy and his company are involved with anti-gay organizations. [..] The latter institute was recently designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center because of its anti-gay positions.
  • Local filmmaker to debut 'Joe's Place' Peterson, Deb. St. Louis Post - Dispatch [St. Louis, Mo] 12 Mar 2011: A.15.
• As he sat at a table in a Chick-fil-A restaurant in Des Peres this morning, Dan Cathy, the company's president said he was "disappointed" by the decision of the Clayton Chamber of Commerce and Focus St. Louis to cancel his presentation scheduled for later this week over concerns that his company is affiliated with anti-gay organizations.
  • St. Louis Post-Dispatch Shop Talk column Kumar, Kavita. McClatchy - Tribune Business News [Washington] 16 Mar 2011.
• More than 8,800 people have signed an online petition demanding Reck suspend sales on campus: www.change.org/petitions/tell-indiana-university-south-bend-remove-anti-gay-chick-fil-a-from-campus. [..] It's inappropriate for the university to allow sales on campus by a corporate vendor with national ties to anti-gay organizations, said Rebecca Gibson, a senior from South Bend who also filed a complaint.
  • IUSB Chick-fil-A ban pushed FOSMOE, MARGARET. South Bend Tribune [South Bend, Ind] 28 Apr 2011: A.1.
• A national controversy over whether Chick-fil-A is anti-gay has come to Salt Lake City. On Thursday, a small group of gay-rights advocates picketed the opening of a new store in Sugar House at 1206 E. 2100 South. The protest was planned for the lunch rush, and about eight people gathered at 12:30 p.m., holding signs with slogans such as "Chick-fil-A is anti-gay." [..] But the company, which is owned by a Baptist family that takes pride in guiding the business with religious principles, has refuted claims that it is anti-gay. [..] Q Salt Lake magazine recently reported that WinShape, Chick-fil-A's nonprofit foundation, has donated $3 million since 2003 to "anti-gay groups," such as the Eagle Forum, Focus on the Family and the Marriage & Family Legacy Fund.
  • Sugar House protesters say Chick-fil-A is anti-gay Winters, Rosemary. The Salt Lake Tribune [Salt Lake City, Utah] 12 Nov 2011.
• And the chain has taken a lot of heat for charitable donations (through its foundation, WinShape) to conservative Christian causes, including several that are openly anti-gay.
  • BITE CLUB Irwin, Heather. The Press Democrat [Santa Rosa, Calif] 25 Dec 2011: D.3.

And so on. If it'd be helpful, I could also search for sources which describe the individual groups as "anti-gay".   Will Beback  talk  22:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

perhaps to maintain a NPOV and balance out the furor over funding of supposed "anti-gay" (rather than pro-heterosexual marriage) organizations, it might be helpful to mention that Dan Cathy (president of Chick-fil-a) said, according to AllBusiness, that Chick-fil-A is “not anti-anybody," and that “while my family and I believe in the Biblical definition of marriage, we love and respect anyone who disagrees.” Also according to AllBusiness, he participated in AIDS Walk Atlanta 5K Run --24.98.211.69 (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm just going to leave this here... http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how-much-money-chick-fil-a-gives-to-anti-gay-groups-2012-7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.42.125 (talk) 21:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I've never read anything about Fellowship of Christian Athletes stating that the group is "anti-gay". If they are going to be mentioned in the article's Controversy section as:

According to WinShape's 990 IRS forms, the charitable WinShape (largely funded by Chick-fil-A) gave more than $2 million to groups such as Focus on the Family and Fellowship of Christian Athletes

then the header should be changed. And if they are not mentioned, then Wikipedia is not giving a complete picture of WinShape's donation history. Shearonink (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

This reference from the WinShape article includes the Fellowship of Christian Athletes as an anti-gay group. Whether or not any of the groups listed is anti-gay is a matter of opinion of readers and newspaper editors. If the term 'anti-gay' is going to be used, the names of the groups should be included so WP readers know the kinds of groups being labeled as such. 72Dino (talk) 22:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Equality Matters is the original organization that identified FCA as being anti-gay in their reports on WinShape's IRS 990 forms, with this November 2011 report titled "Chick-Fil-A Donated Nearly $2 Million To Anti-Gay Groups In 2009" (2011 story) and in their July 2012 report with the same title (2012 link).

While we're at it, the Southern Poverty Law Center in 2005 described some of the groups WinShape donated to as being anti-gay (including Family Research Council and Focus on the Family) but called the Family Research Institute (not the same as the FRC) an anti-gay hate group.

Sometimes I think this section we're referring to should be called "Words describing people and groups and who gets to choose them". Yes, it's true that these groups have been described in various reports as anti-gay, I'm not disputing that, it's clear that references for the use of this term exist, but whether that term is one that any of these groups would use to describe themselves, whether that term is used to describe these groups in other media reports unconnected with the WinShape Foundation, whether that term is one that is generally used to describe these groups is another matter. All I care about in this case is that the article be as precise and as neutral with its word-choices as it can possibly be. Shearonink (talk) 04:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Huff Post says "company supports anti gay groups. company supports these groups" however, that cannot be read to then conclude "therefore X group is anti gay". I have removed Fellowship of Christian Athletes and replaced it with Eagle Forum which is specifically named an anti gay group that is being supported in one of the other current sources.-- The Red Pen of Doom 12:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

and all in all it is the best policy to identify who is calling a group "anti-gay" within the wikipedia article text. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

By the way, there is a similar discussion about these donations going on right now at the WinShape Foundation article (after all, the foundation made the donations, not Chick-fil-A). It may be helpful to combine the discussions, or at least make sure they reach the same conclusion. 72Dino (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

While I think it's fair to have "anti-gay" in the body of the section, I don't agree with having it as the heading title when it is obviously disputed. The WinShape article describes it as " Support for conservative groups". Another option would be to say "Involvement in Gay Marriage Debate" or something like that. - Maximusveritas (talk) 08:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually winshape has "Anti-Gay" in the body and headline. That is what over a dozen referances show and wikipedia is based on good verfiable referances. This is not disputed, its only disputed with those that are trying to ignore many referances and inject their POV. 216.81.94.68 (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Change "Response from universities and student groups" to "Response from franchise locations"?

Why I say that, the Boston mayor is vowing to block franchises from opening. Not sure how possible that is, within the confines of the power of a city, but he's trying. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I think I understand what you're saying here, but I think the Boston news should be in its own section. Any dissent about the franchise is important to note, but the student groups would not seem to have the clout of an announcement from the Mayor of Boston. I've gone ahead and added the info + cite to the article. Shearonink (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a little short, considering no legal process has gone through, but I suppose the distinct section is justifiable. I moved it to the top, as the biggest headline/impact of them all. -- Zanimum (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Resturant

I thought Chick-fil-A was a restaurant??? Why is half of this article attacking it on moral grounds? Kinda silly and very sad that Wikipedia puts up with so much agenda driven content? It is also very sad how one sided it is. Corporations the size of chick-fil-a face thousands of lawsuits every year. Unless the lawsuit has relevance to the article it should not be included. One disgruntled employee who settled does not deserve mention. Lets clean some of this anti this anti that stuff out. I will start to get rid of stuff that has nothing to do with the business. Mantion (talk) 09:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Everything you blanked is about the company, good and bad. Wikipedia is not a Ad for companies or groups but about who they are, what they do, what they have done. Do not blank again. 72.196.235.207 (talk) 10:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I Removed content that didn't belong in the article don't revert. If you want to dispute that is fine find an admin, show me why undue weight should be used to attack the company, bosses view of marriage. Also a single lawsuit that was settled is not relevant. This is not a forum for your agenda. Information included should be directly relevant to the subject matter.Mantion (talk) 10:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not your personal site. Everything up and posted meets Wikipedia standards. If you remove again I will report you. 216.81.94.77 (talk) 10:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Please go get Admin clearly this site is under attack with people with a personal bent against the company..Mantion (talk) 10:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Your edits are breaking the 3RR let alone many other rules. Again this is wikipedia are information is posted about people and companies, good and bad. This is not a PR or AD site. 216.81.94.77 (talk) 10:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how I broke the 3rr. I am removing small sections at a time and only reverted it once. I hope you do report it because this kind of bias in a wiki article is really sad. This whole article needs to be fixed.Mantion (talk) 10:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You removed half of the Chickfila article twice and then started removing other parts without TALK. These topics have been talked about and this is what has been agreed to let alone has many references and is verifiable and meets Wikipedia standards. Also seems you are having issues at your own TALK page so maybe you should just stop editing at Wikipedia since you can not so it in a mature manner. 216.81.94.77 (talk) 10:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Mantion, WP is a nominally used by activists that have a "beef" with some group or individual. Any group, company, or individual that supports traditional marriage will be attacked on WP. Arzel (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to have to remind you that WP:AGF is a rule, not just a good idea. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 14:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

So you are saying I am right, but you want me to pretend that you are editing under good faith? Arzel (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

you can personally and privately believe what ever you want about what a person's motives might be, but your actions and statements must conform with a belief that the other editors are acting to improve the encyclopedia. if you are unable to do so, then you will be asked to leave.-- The Red Pen of Doom 03:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

When it is clear that some of their actions are activist in nature that assumption goes out the window. People don't have to agree with Chick-fil-A's personal business attitude, I don't agree with it, but WP is not the place to come and try to wage a public campaign against a business or person. Arzel (talk) 04:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Bias

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

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

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

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

Potential material of Huckabee's support

I removed a chunk of material from the article about Huckabee's support of the organization which appeared to be a copyright cut and paste violation from [13] If it is the community's determination that the former governor's take on the situation is appropriate to include, the source can be appropriately paraphrased and returned. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the removal as another persons, known actor, quote for banning Chickfila was removed. I don't see how this is any more notable. 72.196.235.207 (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It was not a violation of the copyright since it is mostly quoting The governor's words and the comypanies new official public statement on their involvement on the marriage issue and since the quotes are referenced that is not a violation of the copyright also Huck called for a national Chick-fil-a appreciation day during his interview with the companies CEO why is a percievable negative interview okay to included why a seemingly positive interview is not okay to include that is clearly favoring one side over another Algonquin7 (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Even the parts that were not direct quotes of people were in general direct quotes from the newspaper. See the guidelines reguarding the inappropriateness of "close paraphrasing". -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

the parts were very small and included such little tid-bits as Huckabee wrote some things that you just can't write differantly without it sounding weird but I recently attempted to paraphrase the debated material to alleviate your concerns please see edit historyAlgonquin7 (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Also I parahphrased more as you suggested I met your concerns no one owns this article the material is clearly sourced and as of my recent edit cannot be considered copyright so what is their left to discuss Algonquin7 (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Just because there is a source does not guarantee that it is appropriate content for a particular encyclopedia article. Explain your rationale for why the opinion of an ex-governor and ex-presidential candidate (and current radio broadcaster?) is a particular voice that we should be including in the article? -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Mike Huckabee called for a national appreciation day in his interview with the Cathy it warranted inclusion also why did we include one interview by Cathy but not another Mike Huckabee is a national leader if Barack Obama commented in the controversy we would surely include it. Also since your edit went over three Rv's you in violation of what you accused me off no one owns this article before taking out my sourced material you should have gained consensus and argued why it should be taken out not the other way around also I alleviated your concerns about the copyright now your arguement has changed it seems your just arguing against including both sides of the story to more accurately represent both sides as an encylopedia should be doingAlgonquin7 (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Also mike Huckabee is a national political leader and newsman and his radio program is a news program one which he interviews many guest national leaders and heads of state we reported the news articles clearly against Mr. Cathy why can't we report news for him as well Algonquin7 (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Huckabee is giving his opinion in this example, not reporting news. We can't list every persons opinion just because they are on TV. 72.196.235.207 (talk) 22:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) Are you saying that the weight of the opinion and notice of a sitting president is the same as an ex-presidential candidate? -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Not quite the same but Mr. Huckabee is a national political leader so it is not that far off if a national political leader in his interview with Mr. Cathy calls for a national day of appreciation then yes it should be included as much as if President Obama did the same thing Algonquin7 (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

As well as his opinion Algonquin7 (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

someone just added Ed Helms a simple celebrity opinions about chick-fila yet no one is doing anything about it because it is a negative take on Mr. Cathy's pro-family view while Huckabee is being discluded because he gives positive take on it unless something is done to correct this clear bias I will be reinserting Mr. Huckabee in immediatly Algonquin7 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Huckabee is not a "national political leader." He is a pundit and a commentator on Fox News. And besides, I don't think this warrants inclusion in the encyclopedia, at least not on this page. If you want to add this somewhere, add it on his page. MsFionnuala (talk) 23:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Huckabee is a national politial leader and one of the biggest and most influential figures on the religuos right. Is Sarah Palin not a national political leader even though she works for fox news, Just as AL Gore is even though he works and runs for Current news, as well as the Reverand Al Sharpton even though he works for Msnbc you can work for a news organization and still be a national political leader;

This does warrant inclusion in the encylopedia you included Mendino saying he opposes Chickfila in Boston his personal opinions since he did not pass any actual legislation he was noting his stance on the restaurant that was included but Mr. Huckabee trying to start a national movement in support of the company and his reasons why along with his interview and the companies national official new statement on the controversy.

I think you are all allowing your personal disagreements with Mr. Huckabee cloud your judgement your article as you have refused any of my contributions is incredibly lopsided against Chick-fila articles like ^ "NYU Decided To Keep "Homophobic" Chick-fil-A Long Before Petition Launched". yet my contribution which fairly represents the otherside of the story is being denied first because of copytight reasons as I was told now after I fixed that a new set of reasons if you included student councils protests movements against chickfila hardly national legislative leaders of any merit Boston Mayor's spoken oppsotion to it then not included a presidential canidate (who was this last years frontrunner the republican nom according to most polls for president) a national political leader trying to start Chick-fila national movement on August first and his reasons why and to even suggest Mr. Huckabee is not a national political leader is absolutely false.

if you include Mendino, Student councils, then you have to include Mr. Huckabee's national movement just as Reverand al sharptons constant protests and movents against things various things are always included see (Boondocks controversy for one of many examples) unless take all of that out you can't take mine out simply because of anyone personal feelings or sentiments Algonquin7 (talk) 03:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a tip, friend - your arguments would be a lot more compelling if you throw in a full stop here and there. At the moment this wall of text is nigh-on unreadable. Euchrid (talk) 05:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Huckabee started a Facebook page asking people to go eat at Chick-fil-A on a specific day. That's hardly a "national movement," and it's hardly encyclopedic. MsFionnuala (talk) 12:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

He also started a facebook page but if you read my response he started his national movement on his national TV show during his interview with Cathy a national appreciation day is a national movement for people to support Chick-fil-a and it is enclyopedic to include not only the oppposition movements but the support movements for someone who argued huck is not a national political leader you are just finding anyway to argue against this being included but I don,t see you raising Caine about Mendino or the other movements by less prominantsAlgonquin7 (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that we'd want to dedicate a lot of space to it, but I certainly don't see anything wrong with mentioning that Huckabee endorsed Chik-fil-a and suggested a national appreciation day. It seems relevant, easily cited and unquestionably true. I'd also consider it rather neutral. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The only problem is you would need to include other "famous" people in their support or non-support/banning. A section like "Response from individuals." The problem is it could go from a small part to large and then more fighting over if someone is "famous" enough to get their name on it. 216.81.81.82 (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Huckabee is a national poitical leader to the religous right not a celebrity if Hillary Clinton did what Huck is doing there would be no question to include it also Mendino a Mayor's opposition is included even though he is expressing his opposition to it as Boston has passed no laws as well as student councils oppostion movements to it yet Huck cannot be included that arguement has holes in it Algonquin7 (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

As already said "Huckabee is not a "national political leader." He is a pundit and a commentator on Fox News." I agree with it and that still remains fact. Just because YOU hold him to a higher level does not mean all others do. --216.81.81.82 (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

No he is a national political leader on the religous right, is not Al sharpton a national political leader even though he works for Msnbc news, Sarah Palin is a national political leader even though she works for fox news, Pat Roberstson is a national leader of the religous right even though he works for Christian Broadcasting News. Huck is a national name and one of the biggest names on the right you are being hypocrtical and just trying to rationalize it anyway to not include a man who might very well be a future president of the U.S. huck is a national poltical leader and newsman that is the fact Algonquin7 (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that his presidential bids put him above pundit status. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

He was also governor of a state are can't former governors not be considered national political leaders because Jeb Bush, and Mario Cuomo might disagree with that Algonquin7 (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

He was governor of Arkansas, like Clinton. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Since no one has commented for a while I'm going to assume there is consenus an float up a test ballon real early tomorrow unless anyone has anything new to say of course also most recent news outlets have characterized it as a national movement example: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/24/mike-huckabee-chick-fil-a-appreciation-day_n_1696648.html so this article is behind where it should be so I might act sooner since this anti-chick-fil-A bias in this article is shameful where we can't even report relevent events since they counter the theme others are imbedding in this article Algonquin7 (talk) 22:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure how you equate "assume there is consenus" when there is not. If you have to "assume" then that is not correct. 216.81.94.68 (talk) 11:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I assumed since the disscussion turned into just me and Still-24-45-42-125 agreeing, which is notable since in the other discussion we disagreed so much, and that no one had edited in a while so there is consensus for Huck at least, while you don't bring up any new points and would just disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing, then of course you would then say I'm editing in bad faith and have POV just because I disagree with you when in fact, I'm begining to believe your editing in bad faith. There seems to be consensus to include huck if you have new points bring that up, not just say I'm wrong and User:Still-24-45-42-125 is wrong by extension Algonquin7 (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Some of the reasoning in this section is rather comical. Folks, listen up... people go to work for Fox News not because they are "national political leaders"; they go to work for Fox News because they are former national political leaders. There's a difference. Belchfire (talk) 01:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Is not a national movement started by at least a former national political leader relevant plus Huck is one of the leading figures among social conservatives and their movement he is still a national leader. Also Belchfire does that mean you don't agree for any inclusion for Huckabee I not sure by that recent edit your exact position please state Algonquin7 (talk) 02:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

No. I'm a social conservative and I had to pull up his Wiki article to see if he is a current or former governor. I don't see him as a leader of anything. He's a former leader. That's why he's on Fox News. He's a has-been.

I'm not saying that I couldn't be convinced, but I'm leaning against Huckabee's inclusion, simply on the grounds that he isn't really relevant in the bigger picture. If anything, Huckabee is making a play to raise his own profile among like-minded people, and we would simply be playing into that. Belchfire (talk) 02:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Nothing about Huck past or present positions or actions suggest he isn't doing this earnestly also a similar case occured on the boondocks page detailing the Reverand Al Sharpton protesting a boondocks episode even though at that time he was signed with Radio One to host a daily national talk radio program, which began airing on January 30, 2006, entitled Keepin It Real with Al Sharpton, Yet this former poltical leader protest was included there why can't Huck's support movement be included here. Also love her hate her Sarah Palin is still considered a national political leader even though she works for Fox News Algonquin7 (talk) 03:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Town Blocks Chickfila

Just saw more places, like the Boston part, is blocking Chickfila from setting up. here is 1 referance but have seen others as well. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/23/chick-fil-a-mountain-view_n_1695805.html Could be set in the same place as the Boston blocking? 216.81.94.75 (talk) 12:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow, good find. I'd go with this article from the Palo Alto Daily News, instead. The Huffington Post sources the second part of this SF Gate article. Always go as close to the original reporting as possible. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Those sources indicate the city approved the zoning for the restaurant. Activists are filing an appeal. Not ready for the encyclopedia yet. 72Dino (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thats what I was thinking as well. I posted this mostly to make sure others do not add till this fleshs out. Might be something maybe nothing. 216.81.94.75 (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Support for traditional marriage

My edits were reverted with no good explanation, and when I undid that with a better explanation, I was again reverted and accused of edit-warring and still given no good explanation.

If I am missing a discussion on this topic that has already reached consensus, then please direct me to it.

If you don't agree that my changes better reflect the sources, then please tell me why.

Thank you, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The whole Anti/Pro has been hased out many times above. It is not a "traditional marriage" as you keep trying to change it to but a Opposition to same-sex marriage. He, and chickfila/winshape, are not giving money to groups to get more people married but giving millions to anti-gay groups to keep some people from getting married. It would be like calling the KKKs actions pro-white people VS hate goup action or anti-minority. His words are one thing, and they are in the peice, but the actions are the headline as that is what is being covered and already been gone over before. 216.81.81.82 (talk) 14:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for coming here to discuss the edit. The reason you keep getting reverted is that your version is not accurate or neutral.

For example, you'd like the section title to be "Support for Traditional Marriage", which is misleading. To illustrate, consider that I fully support traditional marriage between a man and a woman, and am in a long-standing one, yet that doesn't mean I oppose same-sex marriage. That's why the section title more accurately reads "Opposition to same-sex marriage".

Likewise, you bend over backwards to make excuses for the founder. That's unacceptable. The current version is our best effort at a fair and balanced handling of the issue. Your changes represent a clear departure from that high standard. You would need to get a consensus of editors supporting you before making any such changes, and to be frank, I don't see that happening because Wikipedia rules are quite clear on this. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 14:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

He was asked about the support of traditional marriage, the reporter turned that into opposition of same-sex marriage. We don't fall into the same trap as suggestive headlining as attention getting reporting. Arzel (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you don't mean to lie, but what you said simply isn't true. There is no doubt that Chik-fil-A opposes same-sex marriage. Moreover, reverting the article prematurely undermines your credibility here. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I am sure you should know what the hell you are talking about before accusing me of lying. Arzel (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

From the source, Biblical recorder, "“Well, guilty as charged,” said Cathy when asked about this opposition.". His words are in there for his framing but the section on Wikipedia is about the Opposition to same-sex marriage where this fits per many referances. As such this has been gone over before and is fitting in with Wikipedias standards. 216.81.81.82 (talk) 14:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

From the source.

Some have opposed the company’s support of the traditional family. “Well, guilty as charged,” said Cathy when asked about this opposition. “We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that. “We operate as a family business ... our restaurants are typically led by families – some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that,” Cathy emphasized. “We intend to stay the course. We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.”

Cathy was aksed about those that oppose their support of the traditional family, hence the section should be about their support of traditional marriage. They are guilty of being opposed by some because of their support of the traditional family. What is eactly so hard to understand about this? I know that the LGBT community does not accept these kinds of businesses or thought, but WP is not the place to air your grievences. Arzel (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

What's difficult to understand is why you keep repeating something that our citations show to be untrue. Please stick to the facts, not your biased personal interpretation. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I gave you the quote above, what selective reading are you performing? Besides don't give me that bias crap. I support the LGBT community, I don't support any group using WP to push their point of view however. Arzel (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You are the only one that has shown to be biased and calling people out as above, let alone I see you removing anything from your own talk page when this has been pointed out. Also he said he supported "biblical definition of the family unit". Please find me a well referenced definition of that. The bible supports polygamy, slave rape, forced marriage to a rapist, etc… all of those are “biblical definition of the family unit” per the bible. Again this is a Wikipedia topic and his interview fits there. The topic is not solely his interview. 216.81.81.82 (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Go back and actually read the quote. She's very clearly stating that she supports limiting the definition of marriage to what she sees as the traditional one. This is logically identical to opposing same-sex marriage. The reporter found this obvious, we find this obvious. I can't imagine why it's not obvious to you. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

First minor point: When User:Still-24-45-42-125 says that the reporter "found it obvious" that Cathy was speaking in opposition to same-sex marriage, are you referring to the phrase "when asked about this opposition" in the original interview? If you look earlier in the same sentence, you will see that the antecedent is those who "have opposed the company's support." Cathy is acknowledging that they do indeed support traditional marriage, as their critics accuse them of doing, but disagrees with them over whether that is a good thing.

Second minor point: User:Still-24-45-42-125, you claim that support for traditional marriage is an inadequate description because supporters of same-sex marriage also support traditional marriage. Cathy and other supporters of traditional marriage would respond that you are misunderstanding the entire controversy. This isn't about what gay people can and cannot do, and it's not even about whether the state should give them benefits for doing it; rather, it is about whether to call it "marriage." The traditional view of marriage is that it is fundamentally about men and women, that the differences and complementarities of men and women are important, and that marriage cannot be understood in any other context. You may support heterosexual couples forming legal arrangements, but that by itself does not mean that you support traditional marriage. By the same token, "traditional marriage" is a sufficient descriptor for what Cathy is discussing in the interview in question.

First major point: The question is not whether the article subject opposes gay marriage; the question is whether this interview (which is the only item under the subject heading in question) is properly characterized in that way. As quoted in context above by Arzel, Don Cathy (who is a male, not a female), was speaking positively about his support for families and the concept of the family as he sees it. He said not a single word that was negative, nor did he mention homosexuality in any way. Whether you agree with him or not, and whatever you may think about what he has said or done at other times, if we are going to discuss this interview then our job should be to properly report his words. If instead we are going to follow the line of the partisan polemical sources that have attacked Cathy, rather than following Cathy's words, then the text should at least make that clear.

Second major point: Just in this section above we have seen 1) User:216.81.81.82 compare the article subject to the KKK; 2) User:Still-24-45-42-125 accuse me of "bend[ing] over backwards to make excuses for the founder," as if our natural posture ought to be to condemn him; 3) User:216.81.81.82 use characterizations of the Bible that many Christians would find offensive and uninformed to actually argue with the article subject; and 4) both users loudly and repeatedly insist that everyone in the conversation except themselves is biased and even lying. Putting all these together, I would strongly exhort User:216.81.81.82 and User:Still-24-45-42-125 to re-read WP:COI and consider whether their feelings on this issue are so strong that they are conflicted and should step back from editing. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

For someone to make edits and then try and Revert without ever checking the TALK page you are one to call out others. You are now trying to make this about editors since the references and Wikipedia standards do not fit your POV. As already said, let alone this has come up before, this is a Topic headline and his interview fits that area. This is not a single topic of only his and his company’s views. If you want to make wild claims and speculation make them with an Admin as your post above shows you are not editing in Good Faith and are only being conformational. 216.81.81.82 (talk) 15:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I did check the Talk page, and I stand by my statement that this interview with Cathy had not previously been discussed. Both you and User:Still-24-45-42-125 reverted me without giving any clear reasons, even when asked, so don't lecture me about reverting etiquette.

You are the one making this about editors. I had a complaint about your actual conduct, but you are taking my edits and going straight to "POV," "wild claims," and "not editing in Good Faith." I do not have the time or energy to continue this conversation, much less to go to the conflict-of-interest noticeboard. But someone perhaps should do so. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Our natural posture should be to stand up straight and speak the truth, without worrying unduly over what people will think. In this case, those who oppose gay rights will cheer Cathy while those who support them will boo, but it's not up to us to take sides here. We simply repeat what Cathy said and let the reader decide. That's what neutrality is. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Amen. If only that were what you were doing. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Just because it is a news source does not mean it doesn't have a clear bias Msnbc and fox news come to mind would wikipedia just blindly source from those articles without filtering out the bias absolutely not why are the Cathy's cleary proponents of traditional marriage being called oponents of same-sex marriage where a person who supports same-sex marriage is called a supporter of such not an opponent of traditional marriage that is obivious double standard that some are arguing for and he has every right to call out editors who are being clealry bias with their POV currently dominanting the article. Algonquin7 (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I already explained this: I personally support both traditional and same-sex marriage. There's no conflict. The conflict is in supporting the notion that only traditional marriage is valid, as Cathy does. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

They are anti-same sex marriage. By keeping 2 people from getting married has no standing on supporting 2 other people that want and/or are married. For example if 2 women or 2 men get married it has no support or harm to the marriage I have with my wife. As such they are not supporting anything; they are spending millions to be against something. Trying to put a PR twist on it does not change the facts. 216.81.81.82 (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Your using political spin and going to great lenghts to try to rationalize somethig do Traditional marriage supporters not call same-sex marriage supporters people who are anti-family and trying to destroy the santicty of marriage and label them with other such remarks or view themselves as not trying to eliminate same-sex marriage but preserve traditional marriage with all the bible hate speech and people sharing their personal opinions in this discussion It is very clear that POV is dominating this current article Algonquin7 (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, 216.81.81.82 is entirely correct. There is a fundamental logical asymmetry between supporting both types of marriage and supporting only one. There do not seem to be any people who only support same-sex marriage, so it's simply not parallel. There's no spin in basic logic.

On the other hand, if you seriously want to claim that the existence of same-sex marriage somehow harms opposite-sex marriages, you're going to find that there are no neutral sources supporting you. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The only ones that seem to have a Bias with the References and Facts are you and some others above. If you think what has already been hased out before is wrong then contact a Admin or file a compliant. Again the facts and sources are pretty clear and only those trying to interject their own POV are having issues with it. Please try and edit in good faith and not insult or attack others. 216.81.81.82 (talk) 16:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

they are plenty of organizations that certainly think same-sex marriage harms traditional marriage that is why most states have banned to preserve traditional marriage whether their arguement is correct is not for us to debate here but the fact is that is their arguement that same-sex marriage is bad for traditional marriage and families and with half of america supporting that opinion I could find plenty of reliable sources to assert Algonquin7 (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, plenty of organizations, and not a single one of them is a neutral reliable source. See the problem? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

with half of america against it sure some would have to be reliable and some neutral but the source currently quoted in the article certainly is not neutral sure it might be from a reliable news organization but like Msnbc and fox they have bias's that wikipedia would filter out; the original interview with the Baptist Press that is being quoted certainly did not characterize Mr. Cathy as such Algonquin7 (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

No, you could easily source the fact that lots of people oppose same-sex marriage. What you couldn't do is source the notion that its existence somehow harms opposite-sex marriages. Some people do believe that, but they have nothing that might pass for an objective basis. If you think I'm wrong, feel free to come up with citations. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It's true enough that you cannot say in a neutral reliable way that gay marriage is objectively bad, since that's not a question that lends itself to objective analysis. But are you claiming that you can say in a neutral reliable way that gay marriage is objectively good? What a remarkable claim. Please be specific. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. The issue is whether there's any objective basis for the claim that the existence of same-sex marriage harms opposite-sex marriages. There isn't. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Except that isn't the issue. Why are we talking about this? Isn't it because you want to argue that the article subject's failure to endorse gay marriage is irrational? The lack of objective evidence on the question does not prove your point. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The actual issue is whether Cathy publicly opposes same-sex marriage, and that issue is long-settled. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I immediately agreed to that statement long ago. I see two issues that remain:

The first issue (which we are talking about here) is your opinion that opposition to gay marriage is objectively a bad thing; your resulting hostility to the article subject pervades everything I have seen you say on this page. But, in fact, a pro-traditional-marriage stance cannot be shown to be objectively wrong (this is the converse of what you try to say above), and denigrating it is not something that we can legitimately do in WP's voice.

The second issue (which we are talking about below) is whether this particular interview should be interpreted as a political statement about gay marriage. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

An important point, which is quickly getting lost in this conversation, is that there is no evidence that Cathy meant his comments in a political way. Yes, he and other CFA folks may have been political on this issue in the past, but we are talking about one particular interview. His critics, and some people on this page, see any mention of marriage and jump straight to politics, but Cathy was talking about supporting families, which can be done (and is done by CFA) in a number of ways completely separate from passing legislation. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that his comments were political. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad to know your personal opinion on the matter. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Pro tip: This is where you follow up by asking for a reason or offering a counter. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

A link to WP:OR can be interpreted as an implicit request to support your statement. And please cut the attitude; I've been around WP for a long time, and I don't see any indication that the same is true of you. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Lynn D. Wardle is a professor of Family Law at BYU one of the top colleges in the country whether she is dead wrong or right see clearly is an authority and anything by such a professer is a legitimate source also included also the family research institute is an organization for traditional marriage but they include statistics that are facts to support their arguements therefore they have sources there quoting that does say it harms it I won't argue that the notion is correct but they are legtimate arguements facts and statistics that support both sides of the debate not just one I refuse to belief that half of americans are just living in a fantasy world with no legitimate arhuements to make unlike the other side http://books.google.com/books?id=U-UpAQAAMAAJ&q=Lynn+D.+Wardle Whats the Harm http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2009/02/getting-the-facts-same-sex-marriage/ Algonquin7 (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Trying to use something from a Morman church school through the Family Research Institute, a group why says "overriding mission: to generate empirical research on issues that threaten the traditional family" and whos head of was dropped by the The American Psychological Association (APA) for violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists, only proves you have no good referances or support to try and back up your POV you're trying to interject. 216.81.94.75 (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Please source your accusations and you can't write off BYU as just some Mormon school Wardle is a professor and the top of (his/her) field, though the family research institiution is are open proponents of traditional marriage there statistics are factual also find a organization that does actively support same-sex marriage that says it does no harm then you would be pretty hard Press Algonquin7 (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't? Watch me. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Also see New york Times article hat says it affects children negatively the study was legtimate whether if it is because of the stigma associated with gay mariage is a good debate but there are legitimate sources just as thier legit sources on the other side I'm sure no side completley owns all the legit sources http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/health/study-examines-effect-of-having-a-gay-parent.html Algonquin7 (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

That would be an argument for bigotry against same-sex parents being harmful to children. It would not be an argument for same-sex marriage being harmful to opposite-sex marriages. You can't find one of those from an unbiased source. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to play your childish game as you are not trying to edit in good faith and are trying to add your POV. If you think its wrong then file a compliant. 216.81.94.75 (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. We've been more than patient. If they really want to escalate this by using some sort of dispute resolution mechanism, they're free to. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that asking you to cite your sources about your accusations about the family research institute is a childish game stop being antagonistic towards me because I don't agree with you I have cited my sources unlike the two above me when asked and others have not when I asked more arguements are more well-founded and cited and I'm sorry but you are not an authority as Dr. Wardle is just because he teaches at amormon college to say otherwise is not editing in good faith and you do not own the article or in charge of this debate Algonquin7 (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The study is not bigotry it deals with facts the fact is children might have differant expierence growing up with same-sex parents than the usual opposite-sex parents that is another example of legit reasons why some support traditional marriage Dr. Wardle I have already state two legit sources why some would logically consider it bad for traditional marriage I cite as many sources from as many legit orgs as you that is why the country is divived plus the issue is that Mr. Cathy never bashed gay marriage he only said he supports traditional marriage by the way using the word bigotry does not make for a civil disscussion and it an attepmt to restrict speech and ideas in my opinion Algonquin7 (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

We can only use what a source explicitely says within the source itself. Putting our interpretation/analysis of several items of verifiable fact that have not been connected together by the sources is not acceptable. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

let's use the facts from the source not the sources interpretation let's quote Mr. Cathy where he only said he supports traditional marriage and none of that intepretation the article usese would if reporting a fact from Fox news and Msnbc would we only report the facts and filter out the political spin yes we would this should be no exception let us not as an encylopedia prepackage opinions about how one should take anothers comment Algonquin7 (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

While we cannot interpret what he said, we most certainly can (and probably should) include what reliable sources have reported that others have interperted/analysed/contextualised the comments to mean (again if those opinions/interpretations/analysis represent the mainstream/significant views, we would not include Joe Blow off the street). 22:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The sourced article from the baptist press where this all begun clearly does not have the sourced materials (which sources the Baptist article) bias how about we compromise instead of calling the section support for traditional marriage or opposition to gay marriage we call it Marriage Controversy and include sides from the sourced material that reports about the baptist press release and the actual baptist press release so all sides are adequatly represented. link to proposed source http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=38271

Algonquin7 (talk) 21:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I've given this some thought, and I have to say that "Opposition to same-sex marriage" is the only suggestion so far that is accurate. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

(Copied from talk page of Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC))

You do what you feel you have to, but I'm confident that what I'm suggesting is strongly supported by our sources. Consider the phrase "public stance against gay marriage"[14]. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Background to Baptist Press interview

Nowhere in the article does it mention that the Baptist Press interview with Cathy was published just days after a much noted report by Equality Matters alleged that Chick-fil-A had been donating to various anti-gay organizations such as Family Research Council and Exodus International. This explains a lot of the furore which has erupted from that interview (with its provocative headline "'Guilty as charged,' Cathy says of Chick-fil-A's stand on biblical & family values"). I shall add this information with citations. Alfietucker (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the current version is pretty good. I especially like that "anti-gay" is in quotes, as that is a fair description of the opinion of Equality Matters, but it is hardly an objective NPOV description worthy of WP's voice (the groups in question would say that they oppose treating certain behaviors as normative but that they are not against gay people). I also like the parenthetical "(with no specific mention of gay marriage)", which properly describes the interview, but which now (unlike the version we were arguing about above) is in a context that makes the subtext clear. Thanks, Alfie. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Glad you like the end result - it's actually a combination of mostly previously written material regarding the Baptist Press interview (which had originally appeared rather later in the article), plus the new material I wrote re the Equality Matters report. The parenthesis is someone else's addition, which I considered cutting for being redundant, but retained (perhaps it needs to be there for the sake of being factually accurate) and instead added the balancing "anti-gay". So, I guess, a triumph of collaborative editing! Alfietucker (talk) 14:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is a post I've received from Belchfire on my talk page, and the reply I gave:

I hated having to do that. Honestly. I think that interview holds some good insight into Cathy's thinking. Trouble is, nobody - but nobody - is going to bother reading it. They will see the headline, and many will say "A-HA! He admits it!" And then we have failed to give a balanced picture of what's really going on with this controversy.

So, I really think that some sort of a preface needs to be given, to properly convey to the reader that the headline was a cheap trick played by a sleazy and hostile media outlet. I have ideas, but it's not entirely up to you or I to decide. So, I'd say the thing to do it start a discussion and let the other editors talk it over. Cheers. Belchfire (talk) 07:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire, I have reinstated the headline that was given to the original interview, since that is a contributory fact which explains the furore that followed. To brand the headline, as you wish to do, "a cheap trick played by a sleazy and hostile media outlet" is plainly POV. Alfietucker (talk) 07:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire has since removed the sentence which I reinstated with a minor amendment (adding "by Baptist Press): "The interview was published by Baptist Press with the headline: "'Guilty as charged,' Cathy says of Chick-fil-A's stand on biblical & family values"." This looks to me like pushing a POV on Belchfire's part, since I have clearly explained the reason for including the headline, which at the end of the day is what was published at the head of the interview and clarifies why there has been so much furore as reported in the mainstream press. Alfietucker (talk) 07:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

As I did my best to explain on your Talk page, Alfie... that headline was written to be incendiary, on purpose, by the editors of that publication. If we include it here without some sort of buffer language, it will have the exact same effect. That would be bad. It's part of our job as editors to avoid becoming the tools of sleazy headline writers. So let's put our heads together and figure out how to use the source, if we can (I do believe it is probably valuable), without falling into that trap. I don't mean to suppress it; I just think we need to be responsible about how it's used. Belchfire (talk) 07:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire - I think it is clearly a matter of opinion, not of fact, that "the headline was written to be incendiary". In all honesty, I think it was written to get readers' attention (given the simmering controversy over the various contributions) and so get them to read an article which, as you say, gives "some good insight into Cathy's thinking". That is fairly standard sub-editing practice in journalism. Besides, the cat is out of the bag (i.e. the headline has been published) and is now part of the NPOV picture - we shouldn't censor it or "buffer" it just because a particular editor on Wikipedia doesn't like it. Alfietucker (talk) 07:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course it's a matter of opinion. What we need to do now is make it a matter of consensus. "Getting readers' attention" and "incendiary" are not mutually exclusive properties, and it doesn't matter if the 'cat is out of the bag'. We are only responsible for what happens here, not elsewhere. Let's just chill for a bit, and give others a chance to have their say. Belchfire (talk) 07:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality of Article at risk

 Closed

The article claims Chik Fil A is an anti-gay company the way it words one of the headlines. Chik Fil A has no formal policy discriminating against homosexuals and does not limit or restrict services to them in anyway. The company founder simply stated that he does not support homosexuality. Wikipedia is a source of truth, and hence the article headline should be changed from its current title "Support of Anti-Gay" to simply "Stance on Homosexuality" or something less inflammatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrJones87 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Please join one of the several already existing discussions on this page about what terminology best reflects what the sources say. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Encouraging centralized discussion: Talk:Chick-fil-A#Edit_request_on_25_July_2012?

Edit request on 25 July 2012

I would like to request that the section titled "Support of anti-gay organizations" be changed to something more neutral, as this implies in a politicized way that the group or the organizations it supports are anti-gay. A better subject would be "Support of traditional marriage". Thank you.

TJ Whittle

71.178.192.239 (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• There are several conversations in progress on this above. There does not appear to be any consensus yet as to how to accurately reflect what the reliable sources say. I have encouraged all of the disparate discussions to join here. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Even though the term "anti-gay" is used by a variety of sources to charectarizes their stances (from gay, laft and neutral), I still feel that it is too subjective, almost a judgement of the stance rather than a description of the stance in and of itself. To draw a parallel, people have called statements made by Mel Gibson and aspect of his movie anti-semitic or homophobic, but I don't think he himself is labelled as such. I feel the title "support of organizations which oppose same sex marriage" or, more broadly, "oppose LGBT rights" would be more accurate. It is a description of a position and is not a simplistic "pro/anti" term.--Dudeman5685 (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh come on, saying you "support traditional marriage" is the same thing as saying you oppose gay marriage. No one is attacking heterosexual marriage, it's not the subject of any debate whatsoever, so there's absolutely no reason to bring it up publically or donate money to supporting it unless the point is actually to be an opponent of same sex marriage. It's just a clever frame to soften what may be becoming an increasingly unpopular stance which is the person opposes homosexual marriage. They want to frame it in a way of being supportive of something because it sounds nicer and kinder, but the point of the stance is not about supporting heterosexual marriage, because again no one is arguing that point so there's no reason to voice support, thus the real point is solely about opposing same sex marriage. I am not trying to state an opinion one way or the other, but I think the argument on this board is incredibly silly. It's like the people who say they support fostering white culture and a pride of white heritage but claim they aren't racist. We're all reasonably intelligent people here, we can look past a rhetorical frame and admit what is really being said. If he wants to oppose gay marriage that's his business and the article shouldn't be written in any way to judge that stance, but his stance and donations are about that opposition and not some support of something else that no one is even attacking.159.246.20.2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

If someone says they "support traditional marriage" - that is one thing. But if when people say that, what they mean is "support ONLY traditional marriage" it is by default, "anti-gay marriage". And there are few if any who are not using it in the "support ONLY traditional marriage" view. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

This is, to be perfectly candid about it, nonsense. It is nothing but spin. Choosing to support traditional marriage does not make a person anti-gay marriage any more than enjoying a sunny day automatically means a person hates thunder storms. It does not follow, and to claim otherwise is to promote OR. Belchfire (talk) 21:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

rofl - -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you got a chuckle out of that. I didn't expect you to agree; I just wanted to clarify the error in your logic for the benefit of others. Belchfire (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Actually most people who are against gay marriage thinks it is bad for traditional marriage and families whether that is true or baloney is irrelevant that is simply what they believe in and is why people who have that view constantly say they are supporting preserving traditional or believe in the sanctity of marriage see sources that I cited during the debate where they made those arguments here is one link they argue it is bad for marriage since same-sex marriage are short-lived et cetera et cetera while the organization are indeed bias against marriage equality the thing is they are one of the leader crusaders against it and make those arguments so people do think it is bad for traditional marriage and families.

I suggest we go with complete neutrality and call the article Marriage stance or Marriage controversy and include language that Mr. Cathy says he supports traditional marriage however those in the LGBT community view it as anti-gay all is true and keeps wikipedia neutral on this issue letting people to make up their own minds whether Chick-fil-a is anti-gay or just support family values. Algonquin7 (talk) 21:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a world of difference between (1) saying support for A equals opposition to B by default(RedPen's position); (2) saying "most people feel that way, so it are teh troof" (your position); and (3) composing a factual and neutral encyclopedia article (our goal, hopefully). If "complete neutrality" is truly the objective, we will shed all of the spin (including that which is imparted by the leftist media organs shouting about this the loudest) and say that the Cathys promote a position on social issues that is consistent with their Christian values, and leave it at that. Where one stands on that proposition speaks volumes about their actual interest in "neutrality", regardless of any protestations to the contrary. Belchfire (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I was just throwing up a compromise but now agree with Belchfire completely again after that well argued point since his logic as Spock would say "is the superior logic" I concede to you Belchfire and make Belchfire's recommendation my recommendation Algonquin7 (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

And this is based on what interpretation of what sources? -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Just because we include sources does not mean we have to include their politically bias narrative let's just include their facts if we included a fox news source or a msnbc source can we not filter out the political spin I would to add sources such as the original baptist press article that characterizes his stance as pro-traditional marriage just because something is a reliable news source Red Pen can it not contain bias's in the narrative like Fox news or Msnbc both legit news organizations or are they completely bias free I'm sorry but the current sources quoted are not Walter Kronkite.

The facts from them is that Mr. Cathy supports traditional marriage he never said he hates or discriminates against gays in fact I would also like to include his huck interview where he said that when this block is over Algonquin7 (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

RedPen, I don't much care about your sources, and I was explaining precisely why I don't care when this post got caught in an edit conflict.

Algonquin, I'm happy that you find my reasoning persuasive, but it occurs to me that I should add the following caveat: what I just posted hinges entirely on what the Cathys have said, or not said, about their position on the matter. If the Cathys have said they are opposed to gay marriage, then we have an open-and-shut case to present it dispassionately within the article ('dispassionately' meaning once; not peppered throughout). If this is a matter of somebody at the NYT, HuffPo or FireDogLake saying that the Cathys are against gay marriage, then it is incumbent on us to dig deeper before we press ahead with branding them as such. I haven't made an exhaustive search of the sources (and don't bother hollering "Oh yes! The sources DO say that!", because few here have that sort of credibility in my eyes), so I honestly don't know - which is why I've used the word "if" a lot. Belchfire (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

If you dont care about the reliable sources then you need to go now and stop cluttering the board. Your personal opinion is irrel. We base our content on reliable sources and how they cover the issue. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

If you aren't going to pay attention to what I actually said, we weren't really having a conversation in the first place, were we? There is an expression that describes the tactic you just employed: we call that a 'straw man'. I find it ironic that you mention OR and 'personal opinion', given that you appear determined to ignore anything that doesn't validate your own. Why don't you show me your best source (I'm not going to dig through all of the nonsense looking for it), and I'll tell you if I support your version or not. You might be surprised - you just might discover that I agree with you. Or not. But you certainly aren't going to persuade me of anything by trying to dismiss my opinion as OR, when I haven't even made a determination about what side of the consensus I am on. Belchfire (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Not if he were to say he opposes same-sex marriage because he beliefs it is bad for traditional marriage same reason I don't support the death penalty because it is murder and bad for life which why I say I'm pro-life not anti-death penalty because I think it is bad for what I support "living" so I'll disagree on that minor point Algonquin7 (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire said: "If the Cathys have said they are opposed to gay marriage, then we have an open-and-shut case to present it dispassionately within the article ('dispassionately' meaning once; not peppered throughout)." How about this?

"I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say 'we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage' and I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about" Quoted from CBS Chicago.

Belchfire, I think it's pretty clear here that Cathy is saying that he is opposed to gay marriage. I don't see how else that could be read. MsFionnuala (talk) 00:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (edit conflict) No that can just as easily be read as Mr. Cathy saying why he supports traditional marriage since that is the way god defines it and that differant definations are disrespectful to god and further supporting his Christian values(Note he is not saying whether gay marriage should be an secular instittution recognized by the goverment but just talking about his personal views quite a differant debate) Also the mere fact you can't find a quote where he out right says he opposes gay marriage says to me there is not one let us not infer from these quotes which can easily be described as reasons why he supports the biblical defination of marriage and go with the quotes where he out right says he supports traditional marriage, stop grasping for straws Algonquin7 (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

A most excellent point, Algonquin. Even if we pretend for the sake of the argument that Cathy is opposed to gay marriage, that alone does NOT justify the label "anti-gay". I can say without a scintilla of doubt, that would be OR. Belchfire (talk) 00:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

And another video with Cathy speaking and referring to gay marriage as "twisted up stuff," although the source might not quite be as acceptable on Wikipedia as the previous one, although it is pretty clear that it's a video of Dan Cathy...

"It's very clear in Romans chapter 1, if we look at society today, we see all the twisted up kind of stuff that's going on. Washington trying to redefine the definition of marriage and all the other kinds of things that we go—if you go upstream from that, in Romans chapter 1, you will see that because we have not acknowledged God and because we have not thanked God, that we have been left victim to the foolishness of our own thoughts, and as result, we are suffering the consequences of a society and culture who has not acknowledged God or not thanked God—he's left us to a deprived mind. It's tragic and we live in a culture of that today." MsFionnuala (talk) 00:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the reality is quite clear. Strikingly so, in fact. If that quote is all we've got, then what we have here is a company being bullied because it won't endorse gay marriage; not because it is actively opposed. You seem to be making the very same logical error that RedPen makes: the company is not in favor of A, therefore it must be opposed to B. This is faulty reasoning, and it smacks of OR. You're trying to take something from a gray area and make it binary. Sorry, but we need something more indicative of opposition before we can neutrally assign the label "anti-gay". Belchfire (talk) 00:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

?? That isn't making any sense. What *I'm* saying is that Cathy is not in favor of A and he is opposed to A. There is no "B". If someone refers to something as "twisted," that means he is not in favor of it. It also means he is opposed to it. I honestly think these sorts of pedantic, bureaucratic debates are one reason that Wikipedia gets ridiculed fairly often in the real world. You've got hundreds of reputable sources using the words "anti-gay" in article titles, yet, neither that nor the content of said articles is good enough for a couple editors, so here we are. In fact, a gnews search for "dan cathy anti-gay" yields 807 articles at the moment. I'm not inclined to go through all 807 of them. Happy debating... I'm out of this one! But I smell the Hall of Lame in a certain talk page's future! MsFionnuala (talk) 01:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

You may find this educational: WP:BIT Belchfire (talk) 01:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :::I can find About 3,980 results for "chick fil a traditional marriage supporters" (1) on google news as well as About 39,600,000 results for "2012 end of days" on google news (2) it is a species arguing point at best Ms. Fionnuala Algonquin7 (talk) 01:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Specious. :) MsFionnuala (talk) 02:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The only Refs I see support the "Anti-gay" lang that is in a hugh num of Refs. Algonquin7 says he can find 39,600,000 results but I do not see a result of any that meet WP:SOURCE/WP:V for reliability and WP:NPOV. --Still-Jim (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually I was arguing against using the results of google searches as a debate point, but there are reliable sources that meet wikipedia's standards such as the original Baptist Press interview that spawned this or Huckabee's interview with Mr. Cathy also many articles from the New York Post Algonquin7 (talk) 02:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

This is all very similar to the Pro-Life/Pro-Choice argument. The Pro-Life people refer to the Pro-Choice people as "Pro-Abortion" and the Pro-Choice people refer to the Pro-Life people as "Anti-Abortion" people. What it comes down to is that people do not like to be Labeled by those groups which they disagree. Our own WP policy WP:LABEL would lean towards the use of Pro-Traditional Marriage since it is the self label of their point of view. The LGBT people are fine to call it whatever they want, but it is decidedly POV to use their terminology as the defacto correct terminology. Furthermore the claim that these two choices (Pro Traditional Marriage and Anti-Gay Marriage) are equal and encompass the entire range of views with Pro-Gay Marriage is a falso dicotomy. In fact some of the argument presented above clearly states that some (all?) Pro-Gay Marriage people are also Pro-Traditional Marriage, so to say conversely that Pro-Traditional Marriage = Anti-Gay marriage is false and goes against the argument stated earlier. The best choice of action is to avoid the politically charged approach, and present in a complteley neurtral tone using WP:LABEL as a basis for the designation of each group. Arzel (talk) 03:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to reiterate User:Dudeman5685's suggestion that we change "anti-gay organizations" to "organizations that oppose same-sex marriage". I think people on both sides would agree that that description is accurate, and it avoids name-calling. Yes, there are sources that use "anti-gay," but that is because even some sources that are usually reliable cannot keep themselves from polemics on an issue like this. Other reliable sources strongly reject the label, so why not side-step the issue and use a phrase that is just as correct and not so controversial? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I endorse this idea, for the reasons given. It's in the best interests of NPOV and simple factual accuracy. I realize some sources are using the stronger wording, but that's because they are pandering to a particular audience. It doesn't mean these sources are right; it just means they know how to get people stirred up. We can see how well it works, just by looking around this place. Belchfire (talk) 03:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Since the page protection has expired (I hadn't realized that), I have gone ahead and implemented my proposal. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I think BlueMoonlet's proposal is a definate improvement but argue for Arzel's and TJ Whittle's proposal as the best proposal since those organizations think partly that gay marriage is corrupting traditional marriage and is one of their many reasons against it let's allow them to label themselves Algonquin Out Algonquin7 (talk) 03:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, Algonquin, I think that's a bridge too far. It is legitimate to mention same-sex marriage, as Alfietucker has demonstrated a connection between that topic and even the recent Cathy interview. It should not be controversial that the description I used is accurate, and I think it ought to satisfy both sides. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Almost: the section heading was ridiculously long and contrived. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The length was fine. Accuracy is more important anyway. Belchfire (talk) 04:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually I agree: its inaccuracy was a worse problem than its awkwardness and length. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not completely happy with the compromise but it is probable the best solution this disscussion is going to yield let's keep it up for a little while before we automatically reject it, clearly there was no consensus for removing the compromise at least not yet Algonquin7 (talk) 04:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Still-24-45-42-125 you do not control the debate leave the compromise up for at least a little while before your so quick to shoot it down it might satisfy the majority while your solution in place for most of the duration of this disscussion clearly does not have consensus evidence this disscussion and My bad I missed your entry so it was so close to Belchfire's please space more my eyes are terrible Algonquin7 (talk) 04:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I reject it for the reasons I've already explained and which you haven't refuted. Find a third alternative or I'll restore the original. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It is the third alternative while there is no consensus for your alternative the (original) it is more accurate and uses less polemics and how is it that contrived or even bad english Algonquin7 (talk) 04:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Its not more accurate - groups like Focus on the Family and Eagle Forum may be currently at the head of the "opposition to same sex marriage" pack now, but the reason CFA's support of those groups was so quick to bring a reaction was the groups long long long history of all sorts of anti - gay activities. To identify them as groups "opposed to same sex marriage" would be as inaccurate as calling a day that was 113 degrees "not really cold".

The way to consensus may require a complete restructuring of the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It is more accurate per available sources. See WP:BIT. We can't get where you want to go without making certain leaps. It doesn't matter how strongly you believe it; what matters is what can be verifiably sourced. All attempts to support your position without OR so far have failed. Belchfire (talk) 05:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Journalists are not required to take an oath of intellectual poverty or undergo radical lobotomies. We have plenty of sources that characterize Chick-fil-a as anti-gay, with opposition to same-sex marriage as only one example of the overall anti-gay agenda.

For example, the first article I found is entitled, "Emanuel goes after Chick-fil-A for boss’ anti-gay views", yet the URL -- http://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhall/13988905-418/ald-moreno-trying-to-block-new-chick-fil-a-over-boss-stance-on-gay-marriage.html -- instead speaks of gay marriage.

Clearly, not only do we have direct support for saying anti-gay, but journalists equate opposing gay marriage with being anti-gay. We have to do the same. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

You're helping me make my point. Opposition to gay marriage is NOT evidence of an anti-gay agenda. It's just evidence of opposition to gay marriage. To say anything more is a non sequitur. Belchfire (talk) 06:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Your point turns out not to be relevant to this article. What matters is what our reliable sources consider to be correct. I showed an example of an article that takes it for granted that opposing gay rights is an example of being anti-gay. What you think is no more important than what I think. Again, what matters is what the reliable sources think. Stick to that and you'll go far. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

We take very little for granted here, and for good reason. Taking something for granted is another way to say "original research", and that's not allowed here. What's your next argument? Belchfire (talk) 06:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, since you didn't dispute the fact that I posted a reliable source that calls Chik-fil-a anti-gay, I don't actually need another argument. You've effectively conceded on my last one. But I'm in a good mood, so here are some more citations to back that one up: [15][16][17][18]. I rest my case. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I checked your sources, and it's just more of the same - editorial political labeling without any real evidence to back it up. Fail. Belchfire (talk) 06:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Look, I don't want to make this personal, but you're lying. I'm going to have to therefore disregard your views, as they are predicated upon a lie. In the future, please don't bother trying to bluff me. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Calm down guys lets not make this personal. That being said the devotion argument to the sources saying that we have to include all their polemics and poltical spin simply because it's sourced has already been debated to death by Red Pen while I, Belchfire, Azrel, and BlueMoonlet have all debunked that arguement with Bluemoonlet putting it best when he said "but that is because even some sources that are usually reliable cannot keep themselves from polemics on an issue like this"

let's move on and not argue the same points or this disscussion becomes to repetative. To move forward what do people think about Red Pen's new compromise measure I think it definately a move forward but I'm not sure it is better than Bluemoonlets compromise Algonquin7 (talk) 07:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

•  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit protected}} template. Please reactivate when a firm proposal for a new section heading has been agreed. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I started a new section on this talk page about the Ken Coleman Show and Cathy's unambiguous statement on this, to which the Mayor of Boston responded. This, I suggest, changes the complexion of the current debate over the 'anti-gay' tag. Rather than the utterly bland "Controversy regarding foundation's beneficiaries" currently on the article, I suggest it would be fair to replace this with the more informative "Activities against legalising gay marriage". Alfietucker (talk) 12:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Facebook controvesy

A new Chick-fil-A controversy, this one with some substantial reliable sources - they've been accused of operating a fake Facebook account in order to defend themselves. This has been covered by the Daily Mail, Huffington Post and LA times:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2179056/Chick-fil-A-denies-using-fake-Facebook-profiles-defend-company-anti-gay-marriage-row.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/25/chick-fil-a-pretend-to-be-teenage-girl-facebook_n_1703321.html
http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-chick-fil-a-chicago-20120725,0,4158667.story

I feel as though this merits inclusion as it plays a role in the way that the company is perceived by the public, as well as reflecting the way in which they are possibly doing business - I say possibly because they're still deny it. Does anyone agree that this merits inclusion? Euchrid (talk) 01:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Not until their is some concrete evidence that chick-fil-A did it, all articles say alleged charges, let's wait and see how this develops. Also important to note I have been blocked from my Huckabee edits where he called for a national chick-fil-a appreciation if that's not included this pales in comparision Algonquin7 (talk) 01:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

How does this merit inclusion if the company denies it and Facebook hasn't confirmed it? Good grief, just look at the sources you're bringing: a British tabloid, a pro-gay columnist at HuffPo, and the freakin' L.A. Times. Without better sources reporting on relevant facts, this doesn't pass the sniff test. Belchfire (talk) 01:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

This does not belong in the article. What would we put in the article? "On July 25, 2012, someone who may or may not have been affiliated with Chick-fil-A may or may not have created a sockpuppet Facebook account to defend them..." C'mon. I am about as far as one can get from a CfA apologist, but even I don't think this belongs here. Honestly, even if it could be proven that someone working for Chick-fil-A did, including stuff like this unnecessarily bloats the article IMO... MsFionnuala (talk) 02:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

As a side note, this is precisely the sort of thing that has earned the public scorn so often directed at the media. The newspapers that carry this sort of rubbish do mortal damage to their credibility and to their brand, then they act surprised when their circulation levels will no longer pay the bills. Idjuts. Belchfire (talk) 02:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

oh, the bath salts=zombies is far clearer and morewidespread case of why the media deserves scorn. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The Ken Coleman Show

First, thank you to Belchfire who, by misattributing the reason for the Mayor of Boston's action against Chick-fil-A (implying it was due to the Equality Matters report), managed to draw my attention to the real reason - one which did not appear at all in the article. I have now included a by now much-quoted (approvingly by certain Christian news sites, among others) statement by Cathy on that show which is clearly hostile to gay marriage, and to which the Mayor of Boston explicitly refers in a letter to Cathy.

This, I suggest, changes the complexion of the current debate over the 'anti-gay' tag. I suggest that rather than the utterly bland "Controversy regarding foundation's beneficiaries" currently on the article, it would be fair to replace this with the more informative "Activities against legalising gay marriage". Alfietucker (talk) 11:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Why would "Activities against legalising gay marriage" be more accurate than simply saying "Efforts to restrict Truett Cathy's right to free speech"? Isn't that what's really going on here? Belchfire (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Alfie, I think your proposed heading is too strong. The Coleman interview did not involve "action" of any kind, but only speech. Furthermore, while Cathy is a key figure in the CFA hierarchy, he may not have been speaking on behalf of the company, at least to Coleman. It is worth noting (and, in fact, I think the article should also mention) that CFA appears to be distancing itself from Cathy's statements ("Going forward, our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena.").

As for the subject heading, how about "Controversy regarding LGBT issues"? The new information you have presented makes a case for going beyond a subject heading that focuses on support for other organizations, but on the other hand they have not taken action as a company, and furthermore not everything under this heading is specifically about same-sex marriage (thus the more general "LGBT issues"). What do you think? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The matter of the section heading has already been resolved via consensus. Discussion over the contents of the section is still valuable, but the heading itself is old business. Belchfire (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

BlueMoonlet - I would certainly support the subject heading you propose, or something along those lines. The one presently in the article is so bland as to be almost meaningless.

Belchfire, with all due respect, the section heading does not appear to have been resolved: another editor has already tagged this (see above) as unresolved, and I would quite agree that it hasn't. Alfietucker (talk) 16:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Alfietucker, I don't know why Belchfire keeps saying "resolved via consensus" when it has not been. Just because you keep saying it does not make it true. 216.81.94.77 (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

A hint for you: "consensus" does not mean "everybody has to agree with me or they're wrong". When your edits are repeatedly and consistently reverted by other editors, as yours have been, that should be a clue for you that you might not be in agreement with the consensus. Belchfire (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

AGAIN maybe you need to read what "consensus" means at Wikipedia, it is not a majority vote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_is_consensus%3F#Not_a_majority_vote also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTDEMOCRACY#DEMOCRACY You seem to not be following any Wikipedia rules on this. 216.81.94.77 (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

There are at least three IPs being used from the Department of Homeland Security that are editing the same articles: 216.81.94.77, 216.81.94.68, and 216.81.81.85. IP 216.81.94.68 is blocked. If the same editor is using these IPs, they should not be editing as they did just above as 216.81.94.77 as that means they are evading a block. If they are different editors, then you may want to create an account to clear up the confusion. 72Dino (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

BlueMoonlet - I reinstated your proposed subheading as I haven't seen support for the subhead originally offered as the most frictionless option by Redpenofdoom, and I certainly agree that it is both more descriptive and NPOV. Unfortunately I managed to press 'return' before I finished the edit summary - so the opening comment there wasn't meant to be addressed to you! Alfietucker (talk) 17:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

No worries.  :) --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

As part of this discussion, please do not consider my edit as an endorsement of that wording. I was merely reverting the edit by a sockpuppet. Personally, I like bland. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is accurate and neutral for all parties. That being said, LGBT issues is much better than anti-gay. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 18:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Understood, and thank you for your courteous explanation. Alfietucker (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I've not been involved in this at all, and I just came here from the discussion I saw at ANI. Perhaps this has been said by others already, but I think it is important to try and avoid making this a WP:COATRACK article. In my personal opinion encyclopedia articles shouldn't have to report every recent controversy that the subject may be involved in. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

All no, but the major ones yes. The Facebook one has been left off and many others reduced. There are other issues out there as well but either older and/or did not get the attention the current ones have. It does not help that many of their issues have been brought up in the last year but it was not till firing someone for their religion and then the COO Cathy coming out and adding gas to the fire. Not sure who their PR team is but they suck. :-) --216Home (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to add the whole "anti-gay" issue (as it is widely, if a little misleadingly, known out there) has spread its ripples even to the UK and been reported in the UK press. So it's a bit more than a storm in a teacup. Alfietucker (talk) 19:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that some discussion of the current controversy is needed. On the other hand, it is becoming increasingly voluminous to the point of WP:UNDUE. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's reached WP:UNDUE, but let's keep an eye on how things develop. Chick-fil-A have started by apparently distancing itself from the comments of its chief operating officer; if the company then, perhaps, follows through and demonstrates a supportive policy towards the LGBT community - not just customers but also towards its employees - then the controversy could perhaps be relegated to a separate page/topic of historical interest with a suitable cross-reference. It's too early to know, though, how WP:UNDUE the coverage may be at present, and certainly, as I understand it, it's not Wikipedia's business or policy to attempt to mitigate any actions and their consequences for which either the company or its representatives is seen to be culpable. Alfietucker (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

"...if the company then, perhaps, follows through and demonstrates a supportive policy towards the LGBT community..." That's pure politics, a big-time NPOV failure, and is palpably nonsense, from a logical standpoint. Belchfire (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the issue - for Chick-fil-A's founders and supporters - was not with LGBT folk, but with whether they were allowed to get married. Well if it's more than that, then I guess it is nonsense/hopelessly wishful thinking. But otherwise what I said wasn't a failure of logic. If you can't agree on that, let's just agree that whatever we think personally, that the world outside Wikipedia doesn't always go the way we want it to and if we're going to edit here we have to do it by the rules of the house. Alfietucker (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Interest in official mediation?

Is there interest in joining together to attempt to resolve the "gay" terminology issue through a centralized and focused, third party mediated dispute resolution process rather than the issue resurfacing and being re-hashed in every new section? (also posting this on the foundation page)-- The Red Pen of Doom 16:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that such a thing is needed. There are a lot of flames being fanned by partisans of both sides on this Talk page, but the article text itself seems fair to me at present. Which questions would be the focus of a mediation, as you envision it? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

No the article does not look fine. Only those that think Wikipedia is a majority vote think that there is even a close measure of consensus. Much of the language has been watered down from what the references support to certain members POV here. 216.81.94.77 (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I am prepared to continue trying to resolve things with the editors presently involved with this page, but I'm aware that seems to be some misunderstandings about the concept of "reliable citations", as far as WP is concerned, among some editors (possibly including myself - I'm frankly astonished by the dismissal by certain editors of what strike me as reasonable sources!). If third party mediation will help clarify this and other matters more speedily, I'm all for it. Alfietucker (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

216.81, why don't you spell out the changes you think are needed to the article as it stands now. I have seen a lot of contention from you, but if you have offered a clear proposal I have missed it. Certainly mediation would be premature until we have a clear proposal and a discussion of it. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I have said the same thing from the beginning; the information should be brief but match the references that meet Wikipedia standards. Anti-gay is a big one but the watering down of the rest is also a disgrace as some here try and insert their POV against what has been reported by many dozens of good references that meet Wikipedia standards. 216.81.94.77 (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I can glean exactly one concrete proposal from what you just said, and even that is unclear. You are proposing that the word "anti-gay" be used in WP's voice, as if it were an objective description? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The IP shouldn't even be here - he is editing through an unexpired block and I have just initiated a SPI for block evasion.

I suppose it may become necessary to escalate to a resolution process, but I discourage it because it will be slowwww. Really, we were doing fine here until the IP came back and started insisting on having his own way over the decisions of the rest of the group. Belchfire (talk) 17:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

And you are trying to say not using it is objective when it’s in many different references. Yet the language you and others want has not been supported in any good references, just POV. And now I see that Belchfire does not want anybody else to look at the edits as he knows he has no support for them. Yea if I was him I would also hate for this to go to mediation and have an outside neutral person look at it. 216.81.94.77 (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

What you need to understand, IP, is that use in a reliable source is necessary but not sufficient for inclusion in the article. On contentious issues, we need to be cautious about taking sides. When reliable sources are hopelessly conflicted on an issue (as is the case here), then our best option is to try to find a middle ground. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, BlueMoonlet, that is his demand. He fails to recognize that there is no concrete evidence in support of that label, and he refuses to recognize Wikipedia policy or the consensus decisions of other editors. Until the SPI is completed, I don't see much reason to acknowledge his presence, let alone his editing demands. Belchfire (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm done for now. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

So again you still have nothing to support your wanted POV language and just try to get people who point out your flaws and Wikipedia violations banned. 216.81.94.77 (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a mess and Interest in official mediation should be best for those that truly want a neutral piece.--216Home (talk) 17:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not that much of a mess we have instead of going back and forth between two positions have recently tried out some compromises that to me shows progress even we have not gotten a compromise down pact yet let's give it a little more time. Also I do not think it should say LGBT issues it infers something more serious than Mr. Cathy just supporting his Christian values since the company has an anti-discrimination policy that includes the homosexual community let's go back to Moonlet's version or Azrel's Algonquin7 (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Algonquin, I have moved on from my previous suggestion, and "LGBT issues" was my idea. The topic is now clearly bigger than their foundation or the organizations they support. And the word "issues" is meant in the sense of "topics," so it's very general and unspecific, and by itself it does not imply anything about how serious or comprehensive the conflict may be. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

My bad, it was not clear from the disscussion that it was your idea. Anyway I say if Moonlet thinks it is a fair Compromise then it's a fair compromise (he seems to be the most unbias editor commenting on this issue) dispute resolute is unnecessary As I think were close to resolving this disscussion Algonquin7 (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Liberals defend Chick-fil-A on free-speech grounds

http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Conservatives-AND-Liberals-Defending-Chick-fil-A-163880526.html If we're going to give so much space to Chick-fil-A's critics, then we should quote these folks also. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead. :-) Alfietucker (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Another Great Idea Moonlet incoporate immedialtely within the article Algonquin7 (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Can someone else please do it? I just wandered by this page the other day, and I'm about ready to wander on again. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Rahm Emanuel, no less. This absolutely deserves space in the article, even if it were at the expense of taking space away from something else (like the college campus stuff, for instance. Emanuel has far more currency and gravitas than Mike Huckabee. Belchfire (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll work it in (although I seem to be a reversion magnet lately). Give me a few. Belchfire (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Ummm... did you read the article? You realize that Rahm Emanuel is against Chick-fil-A here? Meaning, he has come out and said he doesn't want Chick-fil-A there either. For someone who is so intent on proper sourcing, you're not doing a great job of reading said sources. ;) That said, the article does mention two liberal people who are defending CfA on free speech grounds, but they don't have quite as much "currency and gravitas" as Emanuel, I don't think. MsFionnuala (talk) 20:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Right, Belchfire may have misunderstood/misstated Emanuel's role. But Salon, Mother Jones, and Eugene Volokh are all very quotable sources. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 21:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done And yes, I did misinterpret the part about Emanuel, but I got my head wrapped around it before I put it in the article. Belchfire (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Philadelphia City Council

The material re Philadelphia City Council was removed with an edit summary of "adding media report". As the material is well sourced and the summary does not explain the removal, I have restored the material. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is just an angry letter from a city councilman hardly notable let's wait for an actual law if any occurs. Also Huckabee's national appreciation was not included (against my objections) this should not be included since this pales in comparision to Huck Algonquin7 (talk) 21:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I removed it (1) because it's just a city councilman, and doesn't rise to near the level of notability as most of the rest of the material in the section and (2) because as the section continues to grow, we will necessarily have to make such decisions in order to winnow the article down to the things that actually matter.

This narrative now includes mentions of people like Rahm Emanuel and Mike Huckabee, so how does Joe Blow Two-bit from the the Philly city council merit a paragraph to himself? Answer: he doesn't. Belchfire (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)