Talk:Chick-fil-A/Archive 1

Spicy Chicken Sandwich

I think we should add about the Spicy Chicken Sandwich which is coming to chickfila. I work at Chickfila and the new sandwich should be coming out soon in about a mounth or two. Because they are still doing testing on the sandwich. 69.251.123.83 21:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

   They never added a spicy did they?  I've never heard of it.

There is the spicy chicken swandwich in the regions of north west alaska where I am from —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickenator2 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC) I am from New Borne Alaska but there is no spicy chicken sandwich —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.75.230.58 (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The spicy chicken sandwich was test-marketed and will go nationwide Summer 2010. Chick-fil-A to add spicy chicken sandwich -HiFiGuy (talk) 04:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Advert

This is just an advertisement. Why is this on Wikipedia? Why not an article for every chain restaurant?

Well, for fairly large chains, there should be an article--the only reason there isn't is we haven't gotten to it yet. You're welcome to start an article on larger chains. They're significant. And I wouldn't call this an ad. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:40, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Why is "fairly large" the proper criterion? Why privilege chains? There are no bright line thresholds dsintinguishing businesses of different sizes. If this chain gets an article why not have an article for the Cotton Block BBQ in Rome, Georgia? Heck, at least it serves food with some taste. Would make more sense to include articles on only businesses that were either so big that they had a lot of political and social clout or had introduced some important innovation. Neither is true of Chick-fil-a.

Because chains are famous. You've probably heard of, oh say, Domino's Pizza rather than say... Uncle Jim's Pizza, haven't you? The point is, Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopaedia to include notable things, of which large fast food chains are one. Articles about non-chain restaurants are more deserving of going into the article for the city/town the restaurant is located in, unless they are extremely famous for some odd reason (for example, let's say a major event happened there, like the signing of a major treaty - ignoring the fact that this has probably ever happened). By the way, you seem to be rather active in Wikipedian affairs. Why not register? Johnleemk | Talk 09:23, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This article was listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. See /Delete for discussion.

Note that this vote is closed (so please don't vote, it won't do any good). The result was keep. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:16, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

What about general knowledge of the company for business research purposes? Chic-fil-a has won several customer service awards from Businessweek and others. That should be noted in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.240.134.230 (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Doodles redirect

Why does "Doodles" redirect here? Just curious -- I'm starting a Doodles Weaver page. Mateo LeFou 15:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

"Doodles" was apparently the name of the previous mascot before the Eat Mor Chikin campaign. Since there's clearly some confusion, I've just changed the Doodles page to be a disambig page instead of an immediate redirect. -- Bovineone 15:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Nickname

How about the nickname Jesus chicken? I sure hope it is not offensive. In either case, I think it is worth being mentioned, in "miscellanea" or "trivia" or whatever section. Cema 05:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of this and have worked for Chick-fil-A for 7 years...should not be in miscellaneous or trivia -- unsigned

Neither have I. where did you hear this, cema? --skiendog

Religious Connections and Controversy

Is the the right place to ask about the neutrality of the Religious Connections and Controversy section? It seems this section is loaded with pejorative terms and accusations. Every group is controversial to someone, so why label evey group listed here as controversial? To some people, the ACLU is more controversial than Campus Crusade for Christ. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to stick to the kind of labeling tearms you hear on the news? I've never heard any reporter use the term "dominionist" to describe a religous right organization.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.130.185.198 (talk • contribs) . }}

Agreed, I've flagged that section as being POV to encourage further discussion. -- Bovineone 03:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I think its less POV than lacking sources. Some of these statements need to be cited.--Bud 01:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

A private individual gives his own money to perfectly legal charities. This is "controversial" only to those with an axe to grind. Thus, I have removed the word "Controversial" from the text. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 02:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how it is controversial at all, and I'm atheist. Donating to charitable causes, religious or not, should always be accepted. --Frag 14:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Truett Cathy is very open about the Christian foundation's of his restaurant and this is not controversal at all. cite the sources and we should be fine. --skiendog

"Controversy" simply means that there is public debate surrounding the topic. It is misleading to assume or indicate that controversy is a negative term. On another tack, it should be made clear that the company itself, not just a "private individual" associated with it, represents and supports faith-based interests. This is evident from their own press material. It doesn't serve anyone's purpose in a positive manner to misdirect or insinuate; Wikipedia is only useful if it is objective. ~~Amro

Part of the "controversy" of Chik-Fil-A is its affiliation with Focus on the Family. Focus on the Family has been considered anti-gay in part because of its ex-gay ministry and for this reason a lot of gay people boycott Chik-Fil-A. Their ex-gay involvement is noted on their wikipedia entry.--egoiste

I fail to see what is so controversial. Its a private company owned by private individuals. I don't really think there is even a "public debate" about it. Dman727 (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Can we get sources on the Focus on the Family involvement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.172.14.189 (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

"Invented" the chicken sandwich?

Anyone have any info that proves or disproves this seemingly outrageous claim? 170.140.8.181 18:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a source, other than they say that they did ("We didn't invent the chicken, just the chicken sandwich") Dlong 23:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoa hoss ... it's just a marketing slogan! --Mycroft.Holmes 02:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a marketing slogan, and incorrect. My 92 year old grandfather insists he ate chicken sandwiches before the second world war. I'm not entirely sure why no one has sued them over this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.140.138 (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

People who are 92 years old tend to be senile, and often make things up to get attention. Besides, who honestly gives a rat's ass? Shut up and eat your damn chicken sandwich. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.242.206 (talk) 22:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Assertion in article about dairy cows not used for beef

This article states: "The beef-boycotting bovines utilized since the first billboard in 1994 are actually dairy cows. The distended udders of the Chick-fil-A cows are evidence that, in reality, the cows would not be processed for beef."

This is clearly not true, as many dairy cows are actually slaughtered for beef. Up to 15% of a dairy farmer's income can be derived from cows marketed for slaughter: http://dairybeef.ucdavis.edu/home.htm

Made the necessary changes in the article. 68.238.197.250 06:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC) Joe Daniels, Nov. 13, 2006

Paper Videos Mascot

Chick-Fil-A (the cow) is the famous mascot for Paper Videos.--72.66.18.153 00:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

What is "Paper Videos"? -- Bovineone 04:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

International

Does anyone know when Chick-Fil-A will expand to other countries? -GD1223

Chick fan base

not anytime soon they thought of putting one in africa and china but they feel they want to expand all over the country first. Most people in the midwest have never even heard of us. You're right about that! My mom's friend started this huge blog as a petition to get one here; we haven't had one since The Simon Mall chain told them they had to be open on Sundays. (They abandoned us,the only one here is a tiny one on a campus not open to the general public.)It was so successful, now there neogotiations for one right here in Kansas!-starburst156 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starburst156 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Original research

It looks like just about everything on this page is credited to the Chick-fil-A website. There must be some better references for this information - some items like Las Vegas being the sounternmost city without a Chick-fil-A are just company publicity statements as is much of the rest of the article I'm afraid.Bob98133 (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I think the company itself would be the best source of information about the company. It makes no sense to look for additional sources to back up the company's direct quotes. That'd be like the Barack Obama quoting Obama saying he's Christian, then looking for another source because Obama isn't a good enough source on his own religion. 208.40.242.41 (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Sundays

Wow, I never realized that Chick-fil-A closed on Sundays... maybe it's because the only one I know of is in Paramus, but I do think that this line should have a direct reference. --67.83.133.218 (talk) 04:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:FOOD Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Restaurants or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. You can find the related request for tagging here -- TinucherianBot (talk) 08:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Closed on Sunday...what about college locations?

I've been to several licensed Chick-Fil-A "Express" locations on several different college campuses that were open on Sundays, along with the rest of the dining halls. I even asked once about it and the guy said they were required to be open to serve the students per their contract with the University.

Has anyone else seen this as well and knows what the actual story is? When I went to Texas A&M, the Chick-Fil-A at Sbisa dining hall was definitely open on Sundays...I know because it was crowded with people from town coming in to get Chick-Fil-A when they couldn't get it at the freestanding locations. Now, according to my brother who goes to school there, it is closed on Sunday.

What's the deal? Anyone seen this? --Prop21 (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

→Drexel University is building a food court near its residential halls and I have it in writing that Chick-fil-a will not be open sundays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.159.169.4 (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I've had similar experiences. There's a chick-fil-a next to a local mall that's open on Sundays as well as the one at my former university.63.139.220.200 (talk) 16:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm skeptical. Can anyone list a specific location that is currently open on Sundays?
--JKeene (talk) 03:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Being open on Sunday is the way to lose your contract w/ Chick-fil-A (the correct way of spelling). NO CFA Unit is opened on Sunday if the want the business on Monday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.182.133.19 (talk) 02:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

MISSPELLINGS

WHAT ARE ALL OF THE MISSPELLINGS OF CHICK-FIL-A? FROM TOP TO BOTTOM OF THIS ARTICLE, CHICK-FIL-A IS MISSPELLED. CONFUSEDclm —Preceding unsigned comment added by VELVET (talk • contribs)

I believe I have removed all of the misspellings on the page. --Leuqarte (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

chick-fil-a sauce

being from the area with the three stores that this originated in (fredericksburg, va) i feel as though this should be at least mentioned in the article somewhere. other restaurants that have a signature sauce (i.e. Arby's) do make mention of their own. any objections to adding a bit of history? 71.62.193.151 (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about special sauces, but I do know that at chick fil a they won't give me the sauce I want unless I call it Polynesian sauce, but at any other restaurant if I say Polynesian sauce they don't know what I'm talking about. How hard is it to consistantly call sweet and sour sauce by the same name?98.192.79.242 (talk) 19:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Chick-fil-A sauce is not Polynesian. It's more of a cross between honey mustard and barbeque. HiFiGuy (talk) 04:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

HOW DO I PUT IN THE SLOGAN!?

Why isn't there an input for the slogan? I think the slogan should be in the info box. People should know that they invented the chicken sandwich just by looking at the info box. It's should be there in the info box already. Green Sheet (talk) 01:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC) asogfliygdefup'iahdbviouuuugewsigrhuedjvmnbdgsik —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickenator2 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Not living in the USA and never having seen an advert for this brand.. how do you pronounce it? Chick-filler? Nanonic (talk) 04:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

As their product is boneless chicken, I pronounce it "Chick fillet." -HiFiGuy (talk) 04:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed pronounced like "chick fillet" -- with the American pronunciation of "fillet", which is more or less French, with the t silent, the e pronounced like the "a" in "face" (hence the "A" in "Chick-fil-A") and the accent on the last syllable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnwcowan (talk • contribs) 16:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Menu

This article, or perhaps a child article, could use a description of its (present and former) menu items. Anyone up for the task? -HiFiGuy (talk) 04:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Truett's Grill Clean Up

Under the section "Truett's Grill," there was a good deal of unsourced/opinion/unvreifiable information. Some of it had been marked for some time, and some of it had not. Since it didn't appear that anybody was making any effort clean up the problems, I went ahead and took out the improper information. If anybody wants to try to find cites for the materials I've removed, that'd be great, but they've been up here too long without any justification. The specific information I took off concerned 1) kids'/grandparents' use of the small door; 2) the themes/service of the restaurants; and 3) the community involvement of the McDonough, GA, location. Finally, I took the liberty of cleaning up the fact that a third location was "new" as of 2006.66.56.63.233 (talk) 12:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Affiliations with hate groups

I think that it is important to note that, in December of 2010, the SPLC officially named AFA and FRC as hate groups. CFA affiliates with both of those organizations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.148.50 (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The SPLC is nothing more than a highly-partisan, left-wing group that uses name calling as its weapon of choice against individuals and organizations that don't tow the PC line. They deliberately put mainstream groups with rather innocuous agendas in the same category as the KKK and neo-Nazis. "Hate group" in their little world is any group that opposes their hard-line leftist agenda. That an organization like this calls anybody "hateful" is not noteworthy. --AntigrandiosË^Talk 14:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Though the CFA is affiliated with many hateful organizations I think that it is great that these people have taken the law into their own hands through the affiliations with the KKK and Neo-Nazis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.95.6 (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Citizens for Community Values (September 7th golf tournament) - need consensus

One of the core principles of Wikipedia is to maintain a neutral point of view, which means editors are not supposed to insert their own personal views into articles. The asserted quotation is not inclusive of the complete sentences from CCV's website. The complete two sentences read (bolding mine):

Both the Old and New Testaments clearly state God’s intention for human sexuality: the monogamous, lifelong sexual union of one man and one woman. Any departure from that Divine order is a distortion of God’s intention for human sexuality, including not only homosexual behavior, but also rape, incest, :pedophilia, premarital sex, adultery, bestiality, pornography and any other sexual expression outside this Scriptural norm.

Regardless of what the website states about the organization's beliefs, the website also indicates that Chik-fil-A is not a major sponsor of this golf-tournament, it is the lunch sponsor, it seems to be providing lunch (for a golf tournament that last year raised a total of $15,000). If CCV is truly notable/notorious enough to inculcate this ongoing recent series of edits & reverts today then perhaps a more appropriate place to explore these various issues in-depth would be its own article (as the organization does at least get a passing mention in American_Family_Association). --- Shearonink (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the edit noting they are a minor sponsor. That being said, the fact of the matter is that they compare homosexuality to rape, bestiality, incest and pedophilia. That's what they say, in black in white, and if we need to quote the entire sentence rather than summarize it, I'm happy with that. It's just the facts, not my point of view, and if needed, we can include a blurb on some or all of their other issues if that would make it more "balanced".

However, homosexuality is the ONLY issue they take a position on--"where we stand". All of the other issues (pornography, gambling, etc.) are just links to various articles and information, mostly from Family Research Council, etc.

Calling them a "conservative religious organization" does not convey the degree of their beliefs, especially around homosexuality, and is itself a subjective reference. Some may think of them as a conservative religious organization, others may consider them a propaganda machine, churning out hate-filled lies to scare their constituency, which eventually ends up in gays being bashed in the name of the lord.

And the whole point to this is that people need to know exactly the type of organization that Chick-fil-A sponsors, and exactly what they stand for, without having to click on a footnote, and the most notable thing about this particular organization is their stance on homosexuality, rather than their stance on human trafficking, for instance. Everyone "for" human trafficking raise their hand!! Hopefully that helps explain why I think it's vital the comparison to bestiality etc. needs to be in the main body of the article. It's noteworthy, especially when a multi-billion dollar company sponsors the organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.24.121.154 (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

@"they're the lunch sponsor": So I guess if McDonald's catered a meeting of NAMBLA, they would just say "well we just agree with them on freedom of speech stuff..dont take our sponsorship as agreeing with EVERYTHING they stand for" SuperAtheist (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Though Nazis are often considered as bad, they have many important values that the rest of the world could learn from — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.95.6 (talk) 19:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 74.232.69.91, 19 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Chick fil a mobile (iPhone) page has been vandalized and has disguisting racist text. Please correct.

74.232.69.91 (talk) 04:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Already done I think. →GƒoleyFour (GSV) 05:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

We're sorry, the page you have reached is the Wikipedia Talkpage for the Wikipedia article about the company Chik-fil-A. This page is not an arm of the company and is not a way to directly contact the company itself. If you have an issue about a company product, policy or company entity (like the official iPhone app), this is not the place to report those thoughts or feelings. Googling the company name and contacting the company directly would be a better option of effecting the desired change. Shearonink (talk) 11:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Religious Organization

I added "religious organization" to the first-paragraph description of Chick-fil-A because, according to the Forbes article referenced, the company's core mission is to "glorify God," not to sell chicken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.231.6.66 (talk) 17:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC) The founder is an islamic christian who imigrated to Pakistan in 1458 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.95.6 (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I have removed it. It damages Chick-fil-A's image to be open about religious affiliations in the opening. In order to best spread Christianity, particularly to children and teenagers, I think we can all agree that we should not allow such negative connotations in the lead. This is Chick-fil-A's mission statement and I don't think we should interfere with that 202.171.168.178 (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

That was the most ridiculous reason for the removal of a section I have ever seen on Wikipedia. "In order to best spread Christianity" is NOT a purpose of Wikipedia. Jbbdude (talk) 02:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Bharrisuga, 9 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Some copy needs to be added to the bottom of the "Religious connections" section referring to the controversy in Pennsylvania.

The additional information needs to read:

Responding to the incident on their Facebook page, Chick-fil-A said “First and foremost, thanks for your patience as we made sure we gathered the facts in regards to recent postings. We have determined that one of our independent Restaurant Operators in Pennsylvania was asked to provide sandwiches to two Art of Marriage video seminars. As our fans, you know we do our best to serve our local communities, and one of the ways we do that is by providing food to schools, colleges, civic groups, businesses, places of worship, not-for-profit groups, etc. At his discretion, the local Operator agreed to simply provide a limited amount of food. Our Chick-fil-A Operators and their employees try very hard every day to go the extra mile in serving ALL of our customers with honor, dignity and respect.”

The link to the Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/ChickfilA

Bharrisuga (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Done Shearonink (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Conflicting Sunday explanations

Truett himself is quoted as saying Chik-fil-A is closed on Sundays as a way of "honoring God." Dan, his son, says Truett told him they closed on Sunday because Truett was "worn out," just tired, and because it wasn't a busy restaurant day. Should we leave in Dan's contradiction of his father's explanation? 98.246.191.164 (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

WIkipedia's accuracy relies on statements that are verifiable and from reliable sources. Both quotes are verifiable so both quotes should stay in. Shearonink (talk) 00:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources

• Gilgoff, Dan. "Chick-fil-A controversy shines light on restaurant's Christian DNA." CNN. February 4, 2011.

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Chick-fil-a-USA-states.png

Two issues: 1) the stated source link now gives a 404 error and 2) the current locator page[1] says there is one in Boise, Idaho (Boise State University), so the map seems to be out-of-date. 76.121.3.85 (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out, as the US map doesn't seem to exist any more on the Chick-Fil-A website. I've gone ahead and deleted it from the article (but any editor could have done the same). Shearonink (talk) 02:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

PS... If anyone's still watching for the map..good news, it's baaaaaack. Shearonink (talk) 04:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Removal of 'WikiProject Chritianity'/Addition of 'Wikiproject Christianity' banner on this talk page

Wondering what's going on with the addition/reversion cycle re: this particular banner as evidenced here... Thanks, Shearonink

The company identifies as a Christian company. I feel that it should be tagged as such, however other watchers of this page disagree. --AdmrBoltz 04:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I've reinstated it. Generally speaking, if a wikiproject wants to tag a page, it's allowed. The mere tagging of a talk page isn't a political statement, it's just an indication that a particular topic is of interest to that project. Dayewalker (talk) 04:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

There's now a discussion about the banner posted at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity page. If enough people from the project feel that the banner isn't warranted, it can be removed. Feel free to voice your opinions as to why the banner is/isn't relevant there as well. Aristophanes68 (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request - Advertising Section

In the section about the current legal battle with a Vermont artist, a New York Times article is incorrectly cited to say that Vermont congressmen have sided with the artist. The NYT was talking about a previous, unrelated intellectual property case between a microbrewery and Monster Energy Drinks. The congressmen have not made any public statement regarding the current matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.247.188 (talk) 09:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, good catch. AV3000 (talk) 12:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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: [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. 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?

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?

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?

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)

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: 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)