Talk:Chick-fil-A/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

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:,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)

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. (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. (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. (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. (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 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)

There are more sources here, including a top official of the ACLU. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 23:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Belchfire 00:18, 27 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)

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. (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 also You seem to not be following any Wikipedia rules on this. (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:,, and IP is blocked. If the same editor is using these IPs, they should not be editing as they did just above as 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)

The current heading "contoveresy with LGBT issues" perfectly encompasses the recent controversy also it will cover I'm sure future developments with this issue, so when something comes up we do not have to keep changing the header. How is the current header not accurate. Also important to note catchy subjective headlines are for newspapers while encylopedias are supposed to be bland I know whenever I read my enclypedia's it's not because I'm looking for a barrel full of monkeys. If you want others to know Chick-fil-A is anti-gay let them read the neutral non-subjective header and writing an base it on their interpretation of the facts, wikipedia should not do the interpreting for them, nor should we be in the business of writing more interesting things the news is in that business let's be boring but accurate; a wikipage about a company does not have to be exciting . Algonquin7 (talk) 05:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Algonquin - I'm not at all sure whether you are addressing your latest post on this thread to any editor in particular. The subheading is still on the article, and I have already expressed my satisfaction with it several times. I only mention this as you have posted your comment immediately under mine, and you haven't made it clear whether you are in fact intending your comment for somebody else. :-) Alfietucker (talk) 06:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not always about you Alfie, I just wanted comment and leave my opinion why the header was the best header to help establish consensus for it since the disscussion clearly questioned whether there was consensus for the header and had proposals to change it, never meant the comment to address you (Sorry if it came off that way) only the disscussion, so I could show support for your position, and again to establish consensus, I only placed my take of the disscussion at the bottom for chronological order. Algonquin7 (talk) 09:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

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

I know a big-wig (CEO?) has recently voiced his opposition regarding same-sex marriages, but I cannot find any references to this chain discriminating against customers or employees, or otherwise having an anti-gay POV or being affiliated with any hate groups. This looks like the opinion of a single individual and not representative of the firm as a whole.

I'm not sure how they would know if a customer is gay in the first place in order to discriminate against them?? (talk) 07:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion wasn't about that. They're not checking employees or customers about that. The CEO simply confirmed that he did not support gay marriage. ViriiK (talk) 07:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
That's not correct. The issue is that the company contributes to anti-gay causes. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
And where is this claim based on? The latest is that the CEO made the stance of being against gay marriage which is what was talking about. ViriiK (talk) 08:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
One reliable source[1] says:
Chick-fil-A donated nearly two million dollars in 2009 to groups with anti-gay agendas, including Focus On the Family, the Family Research Council, and the Exodus International.
Yes, that's pretty clear. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Which was not the user's question. He asked if they were discriminating against customers or employees and the answer was no. ViriiK (talk) 08:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
That's one answer, but it's not the truth. There's a lawsuit about their discrimination against a female employee. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
And is it concluded? The case occurred more than a year ago so I don't see anything conclusive to come out of that. So the answer is still no. I'm looking at the GLAAD filing and it seems they use more than one woman and the case is about gender discrimination, not same-sex discrimination which renders your point moot. ViriiK (talk) 08:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the GLAAD filing is dated in May, so I wouldn't expect any conclusions yet. For that matter, such cases typically end with a settlement that includes silence as the price for payment.
As for relevance, you're entirely mistaken. Chick-fil-a isn't merely anti-gay. As their founder proudly explains, they support the whole evangelical package, which includes misogyny. The woman was apparently fired so that she could be a stay-at-home mother, as conservative evangelicals expect. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Is this facts or personal opinion? As for the GLAAD filing, it runs contrary to news reports claim of same-sex discrimination. I understand that GLAAD is an organization to represent people of "Gay & Lesbian" based on their organization's title but the filings does not claim same-sex discrimination whatsoever but instead gender discrimination. People including reporters can lie in the public however they want since that's their right to freedom of speech in the United States but in the courtroom, that right does not apply so they are arguing in the courtroom that Brenda Honeycutt was discriminated against for her gender [2]. So, the answer still is correct that the answer is no to the user's questioning. ViriiK (talk) 08:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
You've just touched upon a failure of logic (and NPOV) that runs rampant on Wikipedia. The common misconception is that failure to support gay marriage equals opposition to gay rights, or all-out hatred of gay people. That's simply bunk, but it's the unfortunate propaganda tactic being employed by LGBT advocates, and far too many editors make themselves tools by following in lock-step. Belchfire-TALK 07:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
This is yet another matter where we have to go with our reliable sources, not the unsupported personal opinions of editors. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

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 (talkcontribs) 14:12, 14 July 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. -- (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?

LGBT section to a different article?

I'm starting to wonder at what point this ought to be split into another article. The LGBT section is starting to get a little unwieldly, or dominate the article... the article itself is around 2500 words, and the LGBT section is around 1100 of them. It's not so much the size of the article that gives me pause, it's the size of the LGBT section in proportion to the rest of the article. It'll be over half soon, no doubt, as more stuff will comes over the next couple of weeks until this brouhaha dies down. Any thoughts on that? I wonder what a synopsis of the section would look like. I considered putting a split section template on the section, but thought it might be a little early, and I'm not quite certain I am formally suggesting it, just seeing what others think. And this talk page is certainly getting eyeballs on it either way. :) MsFionnuala (talk) 21:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Your point is well taken, but I'm not sure a fork is in the best interest of the encyclopedia. If we fork off a new article, material will still creep back into the main article and there will just be twice as many opportunities for POV mischief. I think the better solution is to start making editorial decisions to pare down the section to the stuff that actually matters. We have entire paragraphs about stuff that can be dealt with in a single sentence. Belchfire (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
agreed. wikipedia tends to get articles that explode with trivia during breaking stories and then need to be trimed with machetes and power trimmers after the media spotlight turns elsewhere and serious consideration and perspective can be given to what is actually important and how important it might be. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
but it may be that it is still too early and too hot to effectively trim, but tagging may be appropriate. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I think a recentism tag at the top of the article would be appropriate. I don't think there is any serious doubt that the section will be 1/4 it's current size after people stop beating it to death. Belchfire (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Agreed and  Done MsFionnuala (talk) 22:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) ::: Yeah... now I just read on Volokh's site that Menino recanted his statement. So now another modification ought to be made. Then someone else will say something, and an editor will want to include that. On and on. My thoughts go to WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and the phrase "enduring notability," and I wonder how many of these details, both for and against CfA, will truly end up having enduring notability. I guess we'll know when when this all dies down. Anyway, I'm on board with what both of you said here, thanks. MsFionnuala (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
We simply don't know yet how things will look when the dust settles; but the fact is we're not talking about nobodies going about their everyday quotidian business, but about quite important people addressing an issue of world-wide concern, whether we like it or not. So I guess anyone who cares is going to be involved in editing this page. Welcome to Wikipedia! :-) Alfietucker (talk) 22:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Say have we included Menino's walkback statement also A sidenote maybe we should start archiving some of these discusions on this talkpage alot of them deal with the same issues anyway. I would archive but I don't know how Algonquin7 (talk) 23:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The page is set to auto-archive and I hesitate to meddle with the settings. Menino's walkback is still very recent as I write this. The choice of sources will improve greatly if we hold off just a little while. Belchfire (talk) 23:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Did not know about auto-archive, As for Menino point taken Algonquin7 (talk) 23:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Just my 2c; this would require a more WP compliant CfA Article, but TECHNICALLY, almost all of LGBT section is not in the right place, and division to a new article might NOT be a WP:FORK. LGBT complaints against C-f-A directly are few, although many articles and advocacy sites do make the construct of guilt by association. Lawsuits against C-f-A are among the lowest in the industry, so not notable, especially since there have not been any where the company was declared guilty. It might be OK to mention that C-f-A asks about marital status, community involvement, etc when interviewing franchisees or operators, something that would not be allowed in interviews of employeees, but that is basically it.

All the rest is technically a criticism of ONE of the activities of organizations that an organization that got money FROM C-f-A engages in, and a non-NPOV one at that. Setting up a separate main article for the 4-degrees of separation stuff, might not be contrary to the MOS.

Probably in the wrong section, but need a more NPOV description of both the 4-degrees-of separation aspect, and the fact that each of these entities, while they cooperate, do not overlap 100%, as implied. Probably need to add the disclaimer "among other things" to description of WinShape and the "family" groups they donate to and collaborate with. By the logic now employed, you could state that Equality Matters, Equality Now, etc are also "anti-gay" because they support (for their constituent group) tax filing reform, parental leave, and childcare allowances, which were all championed by several of the groups they are now tarring with the epithet. They are, of course only PARTIALLY in agreement, just like C-f-A and WinShape. -- (talk) 15:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

209 makes mostly valid points, and I'll add that even when the recentism is cleaned out of this article, what remains could very well dominate. But I don't support a content fork to spin off the LGBT section into its own article, which will simply be a dedicated hit piece on CfA and provide a convenient dumping ground for haters. I might be persuaded to support forking the section into the existing Equality Matters article, where the cause and effects can be more logically connected. Belchfire 16:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment not to fork it (at least for now) let the smoke clear and see how much we can axe due to recetism and how much is notable to leave. This controversy is in my opinion is approaching it's last stride should be over soon enough Algonquin7 (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Someone above wrote that this article as it stands is "fair." I see that most of the complaints that have been raised about Chick-Fil-A are prominent, but there's no mention of the efforts of supporters, and no mention of Facebook's censorship of a Chick-Fil-A page that supporters had put in place. There's also no mention of many so-called credible news sites falsely reporting that the "muppets" cut ties with CFA. That brand hasn't been owned by the Henson company for several years. So yeah, that's very fair and balanced coverage of the situation. Keep up the good work, Wikipedians! LOL — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

When you see people here saying this is fair, or that is fair, we are generally talking about a very narrow sliver of the article. When the subject matter is contentious and there are people doing their utmost to use Wikipedia as a platform to push their social agenda - which is definitely the case with gays throughout Wikipedia - then the articles have to be hammered out a couple of words at a time, and the discussions reflect that.
Truth be told, I don't think many who have edited this article think it is "fair", as a whole. I certainly don't - I'm of the opinion the article is firmly slanted towards the LGBT side of the story, and that it totally leaves out the most important part of all: that LGBT advocates have targeted CfA in an effort set an example and turn CfA into a public whipping boy (which is an attack on everybody's right to free speech). And yes, I can source that POV robustly, but I know better than to even try, understanding as I do that it would have to be done piecemeal. Belchfire 21:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
When the subject matter is contentious and there are people doing their utmost to use Wikipedia as a platform to push their social agenda - which is definitely the case with conservatives throughout Wikipedia - then the articles have to be hammered out a couple of words at a time, and the discussions reflect that.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Sarek, I flabbergasted by your statement. I think you're overdue for a trout.– Lionel (talk) 07:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

So the librals throughout wikipedia are all keeping their social agenda to themselves? Algonquin7 (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Well put, Alongonquin7. You get a delicious Chick-Fil-A sammie!!!!! – Lionel (talk) 07:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Obviously all editors have their biases, which is why it's counterproductive to keep accusing everyone else of bias while pretending to be perfectly unbiased. Let's focus on the basics: neutrality, reliability, notability. If we do that, biases won't matter. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Alfietucker (talk) 08:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Content from mayor of Boston

Boston Mayor Menino stated that he would not allow CfA in Boston. He has since backpedaled and has indicated he was only giving his personal opinion. With this clarification, I think we should remove his quotes. I'm sure a number of local politicians are going to give their opinions about CfA, but they should not be in an encyclopedia article. 72Dino (talk) 23:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

This a good example of why WP should not be used as a newspaper. Arzel (talk) 23:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Good point, Arzel. Good point indeed. That said, Menino's overreaction is illustrative of the overall story, and I'm not sure that we should eliminate any mention of it simply because he walked it back. Belchfire-TALK 23:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
The hyperbole is part of the story and should be documented in the article. – Lionel (talk) 10:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Reduction of 'recentism'

As was mentioned yesterday, this article suffers from a serious case of WP:RECENTISM. This is to be expected, given the circumstances, but it will need to be corrected. Now that CfA is dropping off the front pages, I don't think it's too soon to begin discussing that.

The Page Size Tool shows the article is 2137 words (that's approximate, since Page Size doesn't count blockquotes). In preview mode all by itself, the section about the scandal is 1040 words (actually more, since that's where the blockquotes are located). So, well over half of this article covers a momentary news event and was generated in the last 72 hours. Way, WAY too much.

I'm not offering an opinion on how much is 'just right'; I'm just saying that more that 50% of the whole is, without a doubt, far and away too much, and creates undue weight. So, assuming there are no further developments, it's time to start removing things that are not essential to the central narrative. Belchfire-TALK 22:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

We do cover content in the proportion that it is covered by reliable sources and the majority of the coverage ever has been focused on the recent issues so its size is not necessarily completely out of whack. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
That is a grotesquely out-of-whack reading of WP:UNDUE that would only be valid in an article dedicated to the LGBT scandal. Just sayin'. Allow me to point out something from the policy you are trying to lean on:

For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and NPOV, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.

In other words, what I just said - this article is about CfA, not about CfA's public image brouhaha. Belchfire-TALK 22:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
True, but the company has been around 66 years and half the article is about the past month. That being said, the ideal solution would be to expand the section about the preceding 65 years. 72Dino (talk) 22:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

It's still to soon to say the controvrsy has subsided, though it's begining to look like it lets not forget that Mike Huckabee has called august 1st CfA appreciation day, so that might put it back in the headlines and stir up more controversy let's, lets put a pin in this till at least August 1st Algonquin7 (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I cut out a couple quotes (left the mention of the quotees and the reference in). I think that at some point, things like the vote count of the college student councils and a couple other details in that part can go away. At this specific moment in time, the article might be OK, but at some point (which could be very soon), there's too much minute detail in there. I also think the bit about the restaurant posting the sign isn't necessary. I believe it was the action of a single store owner, if I'm correct. If, say, a McDonalds store owner does something stupid, it doesn't go in the McDonalds Wikipedia article. MsFionnuala (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed and Well argued Ms. Fionnuala Algonquin7 (talk) 23:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

In reality, the article hasn't been "OK" since roughly whenever it was that it passed 1500 words or so. Somewhere in there. The policy on RECENTISM doesn't provide an exception for recent-ness. In fact, the policy is actually intended as a caution to use judgment and restraint when adding material about about a current event that may lack lasting notoriety. It's not an exemption to UNDUE weight, granted due to ongoing current events. More diligent editors than the bunch who've been working on this article might have - no, definitely would have - been much more careful about what was allowed to be inserted.
Oh, and another thing, Algonquin... Wikpedia is not a crystal ball. Your reasoning about waiting for August 1st is specifically disallowed. Belchfire-TALK 23:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Had no idea about the crystal ball policy thanks for informing, but I still think we should wait a couple of days since it just began dropping from the headlines Algonquin7 (talk) 23:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I think it's fair to say that there is content in there which will be out of the article at some point. But, there's no deadline, and I think it's too early for anyone to claim that they have sufficient perspective to know exactly what that content is. MsFionnuala (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Honestly, if one finds that they are not able to apply the necessary perspective, it might be best for that person to refrain from editing the article. Policy clearly requires that such perspective be applied before inserting material, because Wikipedia is not a news outlet. This isn't complicated, and the policy requirements are not things to be deferred until some undefined future date. UNDUE doesn't begin to apply "after things have settled down"; it's to be applied before an editor presses 'Save page'. What's your next argument? Belchfire-TALK 23:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Belchfire, with due respect I totally agree with MsFionnuala. But then I suspect that you are each using the word 'perspective' in a different sense: my understanding is that MsFionnuala means the kind of 'perspective' gained after some time has passed, so we can see how what today seem potentially big issues (threats of blocking the establishment of further Chick-fil-A restaurants, for instance) pan out. No editor can truly tell how such events, as they happen, are going to pan out unless they are somehow equipped with that mythical crystal ball. Alfietucker (talk) 00:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
All I can tell you is read the policies I've linked. Show me where it says it's OK to pile in cruft during an ongoing event and pull it out later. Belchfire-TALK 00:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, on the recentism essay, one of the suggestions for dealing with recentism reads: "Just wait and see. Remember, there is no deadline. Editors writing today do not have a historical perspective on today's events, and should not pretend to have a crystal ball." It also suggests waiting until the edits per day have calmed down and then doing rewrites. I don't think we're there yet. MsFionnuala (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, point taken. You have to admit, the number of edits is way down today compared to yesterday, because the flow of incoming new reports has trailed off. Myself, I just got done massaging the section (I really didn't remove much - about 40-50 words in aggregate), and I'm feeling better about it than I did a couple of hours ago. Most of my edits were simply copy edits to cut down on wordiness and tighten up the narrative. I improved the linkage in the prose between CfA, PFI and WinShape (that was a weak point that I saw before), and generally de-cluttered things just a little. Belchfire-TALK 01:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it is way down, looks like by around a factor of 5. I think removing the stuff about the sign was a good (and necessary) edit. MsFionnuala (talk) 01:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Nooooo, not a factor of 5. I encourage you to compare what I did to how it looks after somebody reverted my changes. Seriously. Look at that with a critical eye and tell me I didn't tighten and improve this article without hurting it a bit. Belchfire-TALK 01:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, Alfie, so why is Focus on the Family relevant, and why do we need to give space to detailing the amounts of the financial contributions to WinShape? How does that inform the reader better than simply saying "connected through financial support", vs. being just a bunch of semi-relevant wonkery that somebody felt it necessary to insert to show off their Google skills? Moreover, why is does that merit inclusion in the article 18 months after it happened, when all it really amounts to is background information about the college campus thing? And how do those details not constitute undue weight in an article that purports to be primarily about the restaurant chain? Just askin', I'm sure you can provide good, solid answers. Belchfire-TALK 01:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire - it's now wa-a-ay past my bedtime (I'm in GMT zone). Sorry. If you can wait until tomorrow I'll give you a fuller answer: for now, that paragraph seems relevant to show the company's history of supporting organizations which (to put it neutrally) are contesting certain LGBT rights. Certainly I'm happy to have a go at tightening it, or for someone else to have a go. But I didn't think it was something to just lose altogether. Alfietucker (talk) 01:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
That's fine Alf, we can bounce it back and forth when you have time. Belchfire-TALK 02:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Just to say I've had another look at that paragraph: it still looks highly relevant to the brouhaha (which is clearly not just about personal religious beliefs), and I don't think it needs tightening as it's only two fairly succinct sentences. That said, I think Belchfire has done some very good work in trimming verbiage and clarifying elsewhere in the article. Alfietucker (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Sure, where Belchfire's changes have been productive, I have not opposed them. However, I'm concerned about these two sentences. Is there any reason we shouldn't restore them? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Still-24-45-42 - the two-sentence paragraph I reinstated, which Belchfire queried and which I've since replied, was with this edit [3]: they are still in the article. :-) Alfietucker (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Here's personally why I think the amounts/details of the contributions are relevant. When I have (real life) conversations about CfA with people these days, people don't know or understand that the company donates profits to anti-gay groups such as Focus on the Family and WinShape. Many people have the attitude "eh, the store owners hire gay people, so who cares?" When I explain to them that CfA has donated millions to these organizations, typically the response is, "Oh, that makes more sense," even if they're inclined to still eat there. Personally, the monetary donations are a bigger problem for me than Cathy's comments. The comments do no harm. The money does. I understand that personal opinion doesn't necessarily matter here, but we are discussing why something is relevant, and I think the above explains why it is relevant (to me). MsFionnuala (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Agreed - the contributions are quite fundamental, and MsFionnuala has expressed this more clearly than I managed in replying to Belchfire earlier. Cathy's comments are, of course, still important in that they brought things to a head and provoked the Mayor of Boston and the others who followed into threatening to block openings of Chick-fil-A restaurants in their districts. Alfietucker (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough, MsFionnuala, I accept your reasoning as a matter of helping the reader to understand the scope of CfA's support. BUT, that being said, the article should also communicate to the reader the full scope of the recipient organizations' activities. If it can be shown that WinShape took the full $8 million and spent it campaigning against gay marriage, fine. But if they used some significant fraction of the money for other purposes, simple honesty requires we spell that out. Belchfire-TALK 20:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
That fact that they contribute to an anti-gay org is sufficient. We don't need to account for how every penny was spent. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree, not in this article. It should be in the WinShape Foundation article, though. 72Dino (talk) 03:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I agree completely. Such details are entirely relevant to that page. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
There's an accuracy problem and a POV problem with that, for reasons I've already explained. We can't throw out there that CfA gave $8M and imply that it makes CfA anti-gay if WinShape spent some significant fraction of that money on other things. That's a lie of omission. The sensible, low-conflict solution is just to say CfA gave financial support (per one of my earlier edits) and leave it at that, without the dollar amount. But we're going to go to the wrestling mat on sourcing if this article implies $8M was spent on anti-gay politics and it can't be proved with RS's. Belchfire-TALK 03:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't know that the article implies that the leadership of CfA is anti-gay for the sole reason that they donated to those causes. There is a lot of other content in the article which bolsters that point. As to explaining the other ministries of groups like FoTF, it would need to be done in a succinct way, because as Still and 72Dino have pointed out, the bulk of that content belongs in their respective articles. And this section is long enough, as we all have pointed out. Something like, "...groups such as Focus on the Family and Eagle Forum that are politically active in opposing same-sex marriage, among other issues." The reason the contributions are notable and fuel the controversy surrounding the company is the opposition to SSM, which is why it needs to be specifically pointed out here. Leaving it out altogether leaves the reader wondering, "well, why is it even mentioned at all in the article?" MsFionnuala (talk) 11:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I generally agree. My concern, though, is that same-sex marriage may be too narrow a focus. The articles I've read characterize their stance in terms of being anti-gay rights, among other things. I would prefer that we stick to what reliable sources say as closely as possible to avoid POV issues. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 11:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I actually thought about that a little bit and looked around a tad before writing the above comment. I didn't find all that much on topics like ENDA or other sexual orientation discrimination bills. I did find a lot about SSM and Proposition 8. To be fair, I didn't spend much time on it, so there could be a lot more out there. MsFionnuala (talk) 12:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

We have strong reliable secondary sources that refer to Cathy's comments as being anti-gay, not merely against same-sex marriage.[4] Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 12:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

My two cents: The Recentism tag is justified. The sections "Religious and political views" and "Controversy regarding LGBT issues" should be removed and held in abeyance until such time as the current controversy cools down. At that time, the deleted material can be re-evaluated and either edited so that it fits in with the goal of creating a proper encyclopedic article, eliminated permanently as being irrelevant to an encyclopedic article on Chick-fil-A, or moved to another article on issues concerning the LGBT (BLGTQ) community. That time is not now.

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

Perhaps those who feel the need to "get the material out there" could navigate over to the WikiNews portion of the empire and work on creating news articles giving full and conscientious consideration to that project's guidelines demanding journalistic accuracy and integrity. NorthCoastReader (talk) 03:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Bogus toy recall story

I've reverted this out of the article a couple of times, but it keeps coming back so I thought it prudent to start a discussion.

As nearly as I can determine, the phony safety recall claim is bunk. I've seen 3 sources so far, and every one of them is based on the same cell phone snap of the same sign on the counter of a the same CfA restaurant in Plano, TX. None of the stories quote a source speaking for the entire chain that cites a safety issue - that wording comes from the sign in Plano, which is clearly the doings of a single restaurant in a single location.

So, it's accurate to repeat the claims of CfA corporate, that the recall is unrelated to the Henson Company's decision. It's not accurate to make it look like CfA falsely claimed a safety problem. Belchfire-TALK 01:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, then you can't possibly object to us mentioning the incident while accurately stating that only one store lied about a safety recall, not the entire chain. This will be a great opportunity to refute the false rumor and set the record straight. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
It's pretty much set straight now. Moreover, the section is already bloated and is overdue to be slimmed down - it doesn't need to be weighed down even more with trivialities that have no bearing on the big picture. It isn't Wikipedia's job to correct the journalistic malpractice of HuffPo. Why don't you wait for other editors to check in and look this over before unilaterally making changes? That sort of thing hasn't gone well for you lately, so as a general thing, it might be best just to chill. Your call, of course. Belchfire-TALK 01:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
What are you talking about? If anyone here is making unilateral changes, it can't be me. I'm having a pleasant chat on the discussion page to figure out what edits we have a consensus for. Do I need to remind you that you were warned about edit-warring? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Here is "a source speaking for the entire chain that cites a safety issue." The heck with HuffPo. I say we go straight to the horse's mouth. MsFionnuala (talk) 03:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Why were the Jim Henson puppets removed from the Chick-fil-A Kid’s Meal?
Chick-fil-A made the choice to voluntarily withdraw the Jim Henson Kid's Meal puppets for potential safety concerns for our customers on Thursday, July 19. On July 20, Chick-fil-A was notified of the Jim Henson Company's decision to no longer partner with us on future endeavors.

Nice work, thank you. I made the appropriate change and added the new source. Belchfire-TALK 03:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

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 [5] 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. (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. (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. (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. -- (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: 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. (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)
A picture I posted on the page of a Chick-Fil-A during Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day was removed. Whether or not we cover this particular movement in the paragraph, I don't see why the picture shouldn't be included, since it is relevant to the section. We cover the opposition to the company's views, why shouldn't we cover the support? PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 19:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


This editor just removed a piece, suggesting that the source does not support it. I read the source and found that it did support what was removed. I pasted an example of this support into my edit comment when I restored what was deleted, but I'm opening this section up to give them a chance to follow up. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The source does not say CFA promotes the founders Christian values. It DOES say they look for franchise operators that believe in "biblical" values. But no where does this source say that CFA runs promotions or prothelystize Christianty per se. The original statement also read like CFA was advertising religion, which is another problem with that statement. I'm open for suggestions on putting in the religious aspects back in the lead however. Perhaps at the end as well so not to be undue. Fasttimes68 (talk) 04:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
A few things...
First, I recommend that you read WP:BRD. It suggests that, once your bold edit is reverted, you immediately talk about it instead of reverting back. If you follow this rule, you will go a long way towards avoiding edit wars that would lock down this article and perhaps block some of its editors.
Second, look at the source again and consider the meaning of words instead of looking for exact matches. As I pointed out in my edit comment, the fact that they "ask you to base your business on biblical principles" means that they promote Christian values. The phrase "biblical principles" means "Christian values" and "ask you to base your business" is an example of promoting. Being closed on Sunday is also a great example of promoting Christian values.
Third, if you're unsure whether the citation is clear and strong enough, the right thing to do is to look for a better citation. In fact, it took me only a few seconds to find one. "Chick-fil-A, which promotes its Christian values and is closed Sundays..." [6].
At this point, I could restore the part you cut and add this citation, but I would prefer that you do this, so that there isn't even the appearance of conflict. Will you do this? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
That source appears to be better. I switched devices now, so editing is a bit problematic. Please add the edit back in.Fasttimes68 (talk) 04:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Fasttimes, that is an absurd and obtuse reading of the source material. And because you are editing the lead, you also need to remember that material in the lead can rely on material in the article's body, not just based on sourcing, but also on Summary Style and WP:MOSINTRO. There is robust support for the language you are trying to remove. If you want to say the statement needs to be sourced per WP:LEADCITE, fine, we can pick out one of several citations from the body and move it up. I say put the rest of that sentence back. It belongs. Belchfire-TALK 04:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Not even close to absurd. The cite simply didnt backup the sentiment to which it was attached. I wouldn't have removed it if I hadn't read the cite in the first place. But this issue is moot as an accurate cite has been found. Fasttimes68 (talk) 04:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
At the request of Fasttimes68, I restored the article. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Bad news: I accidentally wiped out another change that Fast made afterwards.
Good news: Fast put it right back in.
Bad news: The change is problematic.
The phrase "promoted religious groups via toys and CDs included" is correct. If you follow the second citation, it brags that they promote "important moral and biblical principles". In contrast, the current version says "included interactive CDs designed by Focus on the Family in some ", which makes it less clear that these are religious material.
I'd like to suggest a compromise that merges the two together. Something like:
Chick-fil-A has also included interactive CDs designed by Focus on the Family that promote Biblical values in some children's meals
What do you think? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
It's out of place in that paragraph, I don't know that it fits anywhere else, and I'm not sure why it belongs in the article, which already talks at length about religious stuff. I think we can trim that. It's trivia, and it's not needed to explain any other point of fact. Belchfire-TALK 04:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
There's room for copyediting, but I don't think we should remove it because it's an example of indoctrinating children. That's distinct issue that WP:NPOV pushes us towards. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to wait a bit, in case anyone has a rebuttal. If not, I'll put probably insert the combined version from above. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I made that edit because of the "toys" reference, which is not what the source said. We shouldn't stray from what the source says regarding these CDs. Highlighting "biblical" and leaving out the other descriptors is undue. Fasttimes68 (talk) 12:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Just my 2c, but I think FastTimes has a point. CfA is known for running the business according to what the owner believes are Christian values, that is not the same as saying the Company promotes those values as an aim in the lede. There is a difference, and the WP:RS that are included mostly say that. While it is true that running a business according to principle X and, as Cathy says in multiple publications, doing so leads to profitability/growth/stakeholder value ends up as a secondary property, promoting principle X, but that is not the same thing. -- (talk) 19:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, WP Heading titles are NOT considered to be any one editor's possession and are explicitly subject to changing. Headings must be NPOV and accurately reflect the discussion, and also must not use editor's names, since that biases any subsequent discussion into discussing editor, not edit. I would ask Still to kindly think of WHAT this discussion is about, not WHO, and change the heading accordingly. Just a polite request.-- (talk) 19:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Original Research needs to be removed

The section on LGBT mentions CFA is connected to WinShape and the reference to a tax document constitutes original research. This reference should be removed and replaced with a reference to a reliable source. Fasttimes68 (talk) 12:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not original research, although it is a primary source. Try another primary source, if you like: Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
The article draws an inference from the PDF. That constitutes OR. However if an RS makes such an inference, it would be acceptable. Fasttimes68 (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
The connection is that CfA is a contributor to WinShape and both are led by Cathy. This information is clear on the primary sources (not OR). There is no legal connection as the WinShape Foundation is a separate 501(c)(3) corporation. 72Dino (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Its still an inference, no matter how obvious, nonetheless. Surely there has to be a RS somewhere that draws the same conclusion. Fasttimes68 (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
It's not a conclusion, it's a basic fact that nobody denies. I could find additional sources -- so could you, by the way -- but you're wrong to demand such things. Seriously, read the policies about WP:RS. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Another organization connected to Chick-fil-A through financial support... and the associated reference is most definitely making a conclusion that the oranizations are linked by Cathy based upon the tax record and Cathy's indisputable involvement at CfA, and that makes it OR. I'm taking the liberty of replacing the reference to the tax document with one from a RS, which we can rely on to affirm the connection between CfA and WS. Fasttimes68 (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
This change is unnecessary, but not harmful. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Just FYI; the reference to the IRS 990 had been changed to refer only to WinShape, not to the content (anti-gay accusations) you object to over a day before the deletions. I agree, the 990 said nothing about the aims, but it did not do so on WP either.-- (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You both are missing the point. Solving from the data in the PDF that since Cathy runs CfA, and Cathy runs WS, therefore CfA has a connection to WS is the very essence of OR. If the connection is important, we rely on the RS to find one. Fasttimes68 (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


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. (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. (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. (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. (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)
Thought I would point this out: 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. The mission here at Wikipedia is to build a neutral encyclopedia. Saying that any group, company, or individual that supports traditional marriage will be attacked on WP does not support that mission; that supports trying to make Wikipedia into something it's not intended to be. If you want an activist wiki, go find Encyclopedia Dramatica (hacktivists), Rational-Wiki (liberal and atheist activists), or Conservapedia (conservative activists). PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 13:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)