Talk:Center for Family and Human Rights

SPLC, United Nations, Yogyakarta Principles etc
It is inaccurate to say the efforts of the Human Rights Council to study violence against gays is "United Nations" effort. The United Nations is a large and complex organization and the only body that can claim to act for the United Nations is the General Assembly, perhaps the Secretary General but not always. The vote to initiate a study was an act of the Human Rights Council and not the United Nations in general. To say otherwise is to give greater weight to the vote than it properly deserves. Eggloff (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC) Eggloff

The Yogyakarta Principles are often confused with a document of the United Nations, which it was not. It is a statement initiated by non-governmental groups, though some UN staff were involved in their private capacity. Identifying it as such provides the reader with a greater understanding of the document and that the document has no weight beyond what an NGO document can provide. Eggloff (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)Eggloff

For precision, it is more accurate to say that the C-FAM response was a statement issued on its website rather than a press release. I find no evidence that the statement was issued to the press. Moreover, it appears in the form of a statement, rather than a press release. Again, accuracy and precision. Eggloff (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC) Eggloff

Radio show
If it is considered important what Ruse said on the radio, then what he said and his apology should probably be enough. To go into great detail about the following day and his comments about his critics seems gratuitous and unnecessary. Eggloff (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC) Eggloff

Strange coincidence
It is a strange co-incidence that the source for User:Wildtypemonkey's addition from CFAM president Austen Ruse was released on March 11, 2014, the same day that User:Wildtypemonkey added it to this article. User:Wildtypemonkey must be pretty closely involved with the organization in order to have obtained and processed the information so...instantaneously. It's almost as if the press released was created in order to serve as a source for the Wikipedia article. But I suppose that it's just a bizarre coincidence. &mdash; goethean 03:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Ongoing controversy
Think it's best to have this in a separate section. Best to segment the non-POV material upfront, let editors work out the details of the controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Defensor1956 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've undone this and some of your additions. Be conscious of the facts that we are not a newspaper, that we write with due weight, and that we only use the best sources on articles about living people. --John (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Many wiki articles feature a "Controversies" section. Given this recent controversy, should the SPLC/C-FAM squabble be distinct from the rest of the article?Defensor1956 (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * See WP:CSECTION when considering a separate section and its heading in this area. Bahooka (talk) 22:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Understood. Thanks for the link. I think current version works best. SPLC gives its opinion. C-FAM rejects the opinion. Both sides. If I had to weigh the claims based on cited sources, SPLC doesn't provide any verifiable information that C-FAM endorses the Uganda law or the criminalization of homosexuality. If sources verify, then those claims ought to re-entered into this article.Defensor1956 (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

CFAM response to hate group listing
I have no idea what Ruse is hoping to gain by denying that he called the UN report a "dishonest" ploy to legitimize homosexuality. The thing about proudly publishing your views on the Internet is that anyone can see them... "This issue is not about the murder of homosexuals. It is about a dishonest campaign to force governments to accept homosexual marriage, homosexual adoption, and homosexual propaganda being taught to your children. -" Maybe we could say that he denied the charges, but I don't see why we would need to say more than that when the charges are verifiably true. (I haven't yet verified the Scott Lively one, but the cited source also doesn't deny it, contrary to what users wrote.) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

"Homosexuality" is a loaded term prone to wide interpretation. Best to cite Ruse directly or summarize his objection as opposition to "homosexual marriage, homosexual adoption, and homosexual propaganda being taught to your children." These are three public policy initiatives that Ruse appears to object to.Defensor1956 (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we need to give that nitpicking more than the single sentence of denial it already has. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not nitpicking at all. Beliefs and understandings vary between political and religious groups regarding the distinction between homosexuality as attraction and homosexuality as conduct. Certain groups will condemn one but not the other. Someone can condemn "homosexual marriage, homosexual adoption, and homosexual propaganda being taught to your children" without necessarily condemning persons with homosexual attractions. For example, many Christians don't condemn homosexual inclination while supporting the policy initiatives Ruse supports. It's possible Ruse actually condemns people for their homosexual attractions, but this would need to be cited.Defensor1956 (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This may be interesting to you as someone personally affiliated with Austin Ruse, but in the real world, no one would say that it was an "absolute falsehood" or a "baseless assertion" to say C-FAM thinks preventing homophobic violence normalizes homosexuality instead of C-FAM thinks preventing homophobic violence normalizes same-sex marriage and adoption. I'm sorry, there are limits to SPS and posting up verifiably false claims is beyond those limits. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Blockquote seems WP:UNDUE
A large blockquote seems WP:UNDUE in an article of this size. I recommend cutting it down in size or putting the quote in the reference. I thought discussing it here first would be prudent considering the back-and-forth occurring in this article. Bahooka (talk) 16:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The quoted material should be paraphrased. &mdash; goethean 16:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with a paraphrase; the reason I restored the blockquote is that paraphrasing that as "LGBT rights opposition" misrepresents SPLC's presumed reasons for identifying the group as a hate group. As I pointed out, many groups are anti-gay but don't get labeled hate groups; it's the ones that support violence, spread lies etc. that get the label. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with a paraphrase too. Inserted blockquote from C-FAM's response to SPLC report to fix WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:BALANCE. Again, no problem paraphrasing.Defensor1956 (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's the statement that was released on Tuesday, right? &mdash; goethean 17:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup. I was made aware of it yesterday. Believe it or not, but many people follow Austin Ruse on Crisis and Breitbart.com. Sorry for being current?Defensor1956 (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure. Was Tuesday's press released distributed on Crisis or Breitbart? &mdash; goethean 17:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Neither. It was on the C-FAM website, which is frequently accessed by readers of Austin Ruse. Occasionally, Ruse's readers will email each other articles from Crisis, Breitbart, or C-FAM. The Internet is pretty cool.Defensor1956 (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you understand that people might think it odd that a press release which is merely a few hours old would be used as a source on Wikipedia by someone who claims to be completely independent of the organization? &mdash; goethean 17:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Certainly I could understand that. Which is why I'm happy to clarify. I just didn't see any reason to wait once I knew about it. Next time I get word of a press release from an organization I follow, I'll be sure to wait several weeks, lest confusion reign again...Unless following an organization = formal affiliation. In that case, I'm affiliated with Planned Parenthood, the Washington Post, and ESPN. -Defensor1956 (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no need to wait. However, you still haven't clarified how you came across the press release immediately upon its publication. &mdash; goethean 18:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Is getting a Tuesday press release on a Wednesday really "immediate"? C-FAM, like the Washington Post, has web subscribers for its publications. Is getting emailed a press release really that strange?Defensor1956 (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It was added on Tuesday. &mdash; goethean 20:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * check the history. That wasn't me. I only learned of this on Wednesday.Defensor1956 (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

SPLC Allegation of C-FAM Support for Scott Lively
There is no evidence that C-FAM or C-FAM staff have ever worked with Scott Lively let alone "lauded" him. The inclusion seems to be an attempt to smear the group by association. Lively is accused of supporting the killing of gays, C-FAM "lauds" him --- though the lauding is not specific (did they laud his beard? his manner of eating? his political views?)--- and therefore C-FAM supports the killing gays, something also not supported by the evidence. Unless there is a specific instance of lauding and this lauding has a direct implication to the work of C-FAM, then this gratuitous remarks should be questioned. Eggloff (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC) Eggloff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggloff (talk • contribs) 12:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The SPLC report cited in this article does state that C-FAM "lauded" Scott Lively. However, the report provides no citation. Can this be verified through another source? Otherwise, there's a WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:POV issue.Defensor1956 (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been working on it, but it's a lot of Google hits to sort through because they've worked on tons of anti-gay campaigns together. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Still waiting. It's odd that SPLC is making you find evidence for their claim. A simple citation would've sufficed. And it's a crucial claim. Many groups oppose the creation of homosexuals as a "suspect class" for the purposes of international and human rights law. Advocating the death penalty for homosexual conduct is another matter. Currently, no verifiable evidence, apart from SPLC's un-sourced research, has been presented indicating C-FAM endorses any draft of the Ugandan Law or praised individuals on account of their support for an earlier draft of said law. Seems like much rests on linking C-FAM to the death penalty for homosexuals, so let's see some evidence.Defensor1956 (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The SPLC report is a reliable source. No further citation is needed. &mdash; goethean 18:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What "reliable source" claims an organization advocates the death penalty for homosexuals without any evidence? Defensor1956 (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Mark Krikorian
Why is his opinion notable and encyclopedic? If it was published in the print version of NR, then we'd have something worth including, but the online version of NR is basically an aggregation of blogs. Gamaliel ( talk ) 22:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * His article notes that he also writes for the print version and appears to be notable enough by publishing in other publications. I believe having a third-party reference is helpful in this article beyond just C-FAM and SPLC. Bahooka (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that third-party sources would be helpful, but they should be things such as newspaper reports or scholarly articles, not partisan blogs. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 23:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The writer is a professional, so I believe this meets the requirement of WP:NEWSBLOG and therefore is a reliable source. Bahooka (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Krikorian is a professional and meets WP:NEWSBLOG criteria as a reliable source. No undue weight is given, editors welcome to add third - parties which corroborate one of the two competing claims here: a) C-FAM supports violate against homosexuals and b) C-FAM doesn't support violence against homosexuals.Defensor1956 (talk) 06:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It's a reliable source written a professional, per WP:NEWSBLOG. National Review and National Review Online are not extremist fringe publications. Many are not happy with SPLC researching because SPLC makes false claims, and doesn't provide citations for key judgments (see Scott Lively conversation above).


 * Believing homosexual acts to be immoral is not hate. Opposing the normalization of homosexual acts is not hate.Would add that, while SPLC wishes it were otherwise, it is not settled science, settled philosophy, or settled law that homosexual behavior is the new black. Certainly many think so. But the fact remains that sexual behavior, unlike race, is not immutable. Sexual behaviors, unlike race, are valid moral criteria for making a moral judgment about actions. Even if same-sex attraction is genetic, does that imply, much less require, that homosexual acts are moral? We can be inclined to do lots of acts, mere desire doesn't make the act moral. What most traditional religions condemn is homosexual behavior, frequently described as "hating the sin, loving the sinner." There are two types of people who ignore this distinction, those who don't know better, and those who do. Defensor1956 (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Whether you agree with the SPLC's categorisation of C-FAM as a hate group, or whether it is reasonable or not, is irrelevant to the Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not a forum for that discussion. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So there is no way to indicate reliable sources issuing criticisms of SPLC's designation? This seems to bias the article toward SPLC's claim, making it unbalanced.Defensor1956 (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Notability
Is this group actually notable? SPLC has talked about their anti-gay activism, but SPLC alone can't support an article, and other than that really all we have is a news cycle piece about Ruse making dumb remarks. (The Mother Jones coverage of Ruse as part of Groundswell is literally just his photo and the name of C-FAM.) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The leader has been quoted fairly extensively in such publications as the New York Times, Washington Post, and Buzzfeed. He and his team have written columns for such notable publications as National Review, Weekly Standard, Washington Times and many others. I am not sure how you have come to the conclusion that the group is not notable enough. Eggloff (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)Eggloff

May 2014 edits
I've walked back some of the recent bad edits, seeing as it looks like we're stuck with the article. I'm not sure when the reference to the Yogyakarta Principles specifically came in to the article, but as C-FAM obviously opposes all efforts to protect LGBT rights, I think we had better leave it at what SPLC said - the general statement about CFAM's opposition to UN work for gay rights - rather than trying to figure out what they meant. I Googled the hate crimes quote to see if it was from something that would help us pin it down, but it seems to be a paraphrase, so I couldn't tell. I've also added a caveat to the mention of Lively, since it is a documented reason for SPLC's labeling them a hate group but we can't independently confirm it. Have I already suggested contacting SPLC to find out when they're referencing? SPLC has access to member mailings and such that aren't always released to the general public. I also removed a self-sourced and non-neutral paragraph on a conference C-FAM held. If the conference is significant, reliable secondary sources will cover it, and we might write about it using neutral and appropriate language. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

You say "C-FAM obviously opposes all efforts to protect LGBT rights..." Can you provide some kind of citation to back that up? It is my understanding that C-FAM is on record asserting the gays and lesbians are covered by all existing human rights treaties, this would include treaties protecting the rights of gays to vote, worship, associate, not to be tortured so on and on and on. I would say quite the contrary that it is obvious that C-FAM fully supports LGBT rights but that they oppose gay marriage, gay adoption, and the insertion of LGBT rights as a specific aspect of international law, particularly since, as C-FAM holds, LGBTs are fully covered by existing international human rights. C-FAM, I thnk but am not sure, is also critical of the harsh laws happening now in Africa. Eggloff (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC) Eggloff

@ Roscelese You're on a crusade. You tried to get the page deleted and every vote was a "keep". You've clearly got some personal opinions on the subject and that can be rough and I'm sorry if someone rubbed you the wrong way at some point but there is no reason to removed information about organizations that you don't like from public circulation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfritz92 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Please explain why you've restored the inappropriate edits. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Why do you feel that they're inappropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfritz92 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Look at my first comment. Please stop stalling; if you can't even attempt to justify the recent bad edits, they will be reverted again. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

"It looks like we're stuck with the article" "I think we had better" "I googled...but it seems to be a paraphrase so I couldn't tell" These are not compelling reasons to insert your personal opinions into the article. Kfritz92 (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Luckily, that's not what I'm doing! In fact, the version I've restored reflects the source, without reading anything into it based on my own original research or opinions. Glad we could clear that up. Now, would you please try to justify the changes you've made? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with her changes. Just indicate what SPLC deems is true. And what C-FAM deems is true. Defensor1956 (talk) 10:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Further on SPLC Charges
It is not accurate to say the initiative opposed by C-FAM was one of the United Nations. It was by a very small body of an immense organization. Even the hyper-link within the proposed para shows what the UN is. It is simply inaccurate to say this was an initiative of the United Nations.

It is also not substantiated that C-FAM lauded Scot Lively in any way for anything ever. I have looked for this. I have asked SPLC for substantiation. Others have looked for this. The fact that SPLC has made this charge but refuses to cite actually casts a doubt on them as a reliable source. As I suggested before, does this mean they lauded his beard, his wardrobe, or his work in Africa on LGBT issues? The charge is very strong because the inference is that C-FAM supports the death of homosexuals. Such a drastic charge needs to be substantiated and in this case it simply is not.

Also, the charge that SPLC exaggerates its figures is made by a very notable journal, Foreign Policy. It is not no one making the charge against SPLC. The specific charge repeated by C-FAM in their own defense fits in here.

There is also no evidence that C-FAM opposes LGBT rights. They opposed an NGO document called the Yogyakarta Principles, a document no part of the UN has ever endorsed.

Eggloff (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC) Eggloff

This article is completely missing the majority of what the group actually does.
LGBT being the least remarkable part of it.

The group is dedicated to a Catholic idea that life should proceed from natural conception to natural death.

The majority of its work is directed at restricting or reversing abortion laws. As per its mission statement it also opposes Euthanasia, artificial birth control, and the death penalty.

It also partners with Best Buddies, a group providing mentoring and care for those with Down Syndrome. This is related to the fact that 90% of Down Syndrome fetuses are aborted.

There are also some notable run-ins with the UN over the subject of Population Control. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.108.10.189 (talk) 13:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Hate group listing
I'm mystified by your insistence on removing this citation. It is literally their hate group listing. They monitor and list hate groups, the Intelligence Files and Hate Map are where those groups are listed. Is it your contention that the SPLC does not in fact monitor and list hate groups, or that the list is actually a secret?

If you don't like the citation, I suggest that you demonstrate good faith by restoring the information and replacing the ref with this one (SPLC's site, linking to this page: "784 known hate groups") or this one ("the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM), an anti-LGBT hate group"). –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The word hate is mentioned on the map, not in the list. C-FAM is on the list but not marked on the map. –Joppa Chong (talk) 02:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It is on the map! Do you need some kind of screenshot with CFAM circled? And if so, why, since you've admitted they're on the list? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that C-FAM is just invisible on the map whereas the list only refers to anti-lgbt groups, too little for the expression in question. Also, it might be a an issue whether blog entries are a good reference. –Joppa Chong (talk) 03:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The list is their list of hate groups, CFAM is literally visible and present on the map, and the blog is published by SPLC, not some random internet blogger. I am deeply confused by what you're trying to do here. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * We need stable stuff, blog entries are likely to be set offline after some time. A hate map without C-FAM clearly and accessibly marked does not convince either. –Joppa Chong (talk) 04:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * So we've established that C-FAM is on their hate group list, on their hate map, and identified as a hate group elsewhere on their website. Please stop looking for weird reasons to remove this material and just stick with RS policy, please. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Who is "we"? –Joppa Chong (talk) 05:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, will you demonstrate good faith by recognizing that three separate sources confirming CFAM's listing as a hate group have been provided, and restoring the content you removed for no policy-compliant reason? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 13:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the section as it is contains all "important" information on the controversy. Furthermore, I don't know if my edits have been read carefully. –Joppa Chong (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm restoring the sourced content. "I refuse to accept the validity of SPLC's own website as a source on SPLC's hate group listings" is simply not a valid complaint. If the issue had been that the Intelligence Files page contains the phrase "hate group" only in the URL, then the Hate Map, which the SPLC describes as mapping 784 hate groups and which includes C-FAM, and/or SPLC's piece on C-FAM specifically, which describes it as a hate group, should have been sufficient. Your arguments are weak and unsupported by policy. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Unsupported by which policy, an LGBT agenda? –Joppa Chong (talk) 03:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sure your removal of the list of other anti-LGBT hate groups was an accident, and I suggest you restore it yourself. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is about C-FAM, not about other groups, let alone anti-LGBT hate groups. –Joppa Chong (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Joppa Chong: "blog entries are likely to be set offline after some time". No they aren't: that an organisation uses a 'blog' to host some content doesn't change the reliability of that content, nor its likely persistence. (Wikipedians seem to have this strange delusion that if an organisation uses blogging software or refers to a section of their site as a 'blog', it suddenly becomes unusable. It's just not true.) You seem to be coming up with a new ad hoc justifications at every turn. It is frankly rather absurd. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be wrong to seek consensus with those wikipedians opposing blog links. –Joppa Chong (talk) 21:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

'Designating' C-Fam an anti-LGBT hate group
I don't understand why CallidusUlixes keeps changing designated in the sentence "The Southern Poverty Law Center has designated C-Fam an anti-LGBT hate group" to other words (first claimed, then stated). CU repeatedly argues in edit summaries that an NGO can't "'designate' hate groups on behalf of the government or any other organization". No, nobody's saying they can. There's nothing in the text about designating on behalf of the government or any other organization. (Did you see my edit summary here?) 'Designate' seems correct, it doesn't imply the government is involved, and your alternatives are awkward. Please stop changing it unless you have an equally good alternative. Bishonen &#124; talk 08:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC).


 * The gist of the alternative is this: "stated" is a neutral word. This is found in the Wikipedia manual of style that you cited earlier in the edit history.  The word "designate" by definition means to "classify", "denote", "indicate" or "signify".  The SPLC has no authority to classify any other NGO with a particular title.  It is good that their organization's purpose is to find hate groups and to make this information known, but the interest of a neutral article on a given topic is simply to convey information that has occurred.  In this case, the SPLC has stated that this group is a hate group.  The SPLC has no special privilege, however, to function as an official organization for "designating" this reality on behalf of anyone but themselves.  To say that they "designate" this or that group as a "hate group" cedes authority to their organization that it simply does not have.  The use of "designate" would be completely acceptable in an article specifically about the SPLC because it is within the purview of explaining the purpose and work of their organization, but to go around marking every organization that has been listed by the SPLC as a hate group as if the SPLC had any direct authority over these other NGOs is uncalled for because it takes a side on the question by indicating both their competency and using a term with connotations that support their view rather than merely conveying the facts. Moreover, the work of the organization in question (C-Fam) is unrelated or practically unrelated to the LGBT community.  Even to mention this fact on the page is fairly peripheral, but to stigmatize the organization based on the opinion of another NGO (which does not enjoy the same unanimous approval to advise the UN) is a failure to remain neutral on the topic.CallidusUlixes (talk) 12:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I think you're inferring a meaning from the word "designate" that isn't implied. In this context "to designate C-Fam a hate group" is semantically almost identical to "to say that C-Fam is a hate group". There is no implication of anything official or governmental. --ChiveFungi (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Please refer to the denotative definition, which is stated above. There is little question that "designate" carries much more weight and sounds official to everyone.  If they are effectively identical, as you say, then there is no need to use the more specific or official term when the first one does the job just fine.CallidusUlixes (talk) 13:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And so you put back your preferred version without consensus? So far, only you like it: Roscelese reverted you, and ChiveFungi and I have objected here. I've restored the original phrasing. Please wait for more people to weigh in here, instead of edit warring. Bishonen &#124; talk 22:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC).
 * I gave alternative: "listed". Do you agree this word has the same meaning with no possible controversial connotations?  It also avoids any claims of the other language sounding "awkward".CallidusUlixes (talk) 10:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with "listed". –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 13:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Listed is all right IMO. Bishonen &#124; talk 17:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC).

Roman Catholic Church
Joppa Chong - why do you keep removing references to the Roman Catholic Church? Contaldo80 (talk) 08:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The article was formerly named "Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute" but this didn't reflect the info given on their main homepage. I would rather like to see a citation reference, and what I recently removed was not properly covered by sources. –Joppa Chong (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the point you are making? Are you disputing that the link is NOT to the Roman Catholic Church - but it is "Catholic" in another sense? Contaldo80 (talk) 08:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I oppose any, let alone a direct mention of a presumed Catholic identity of C-FAM as long as we don't get a reference that fits. –Joppa Chong (talk) 20:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You're making a nonsense of this. Then I'm taking out "fidelity to the teachings of the Church" as we don't know what church they are talking about and so i'ts meaningless. You are also being intellectually dishonest. Austin Ruse and Nicholas Windsor are Roman Catholics - as you well know - so I don't know what game you're trying to play by suggesting there is no link to the Roman Catholic Church and its teachings. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...did I say so??? I would say we reached something in the meantime. –Joppa Chong (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Still not there. I'll say again the mission statement doesn't say "Christian" it says "Church". If you want this then you need to specify THE church. You can't have your cake and eat. You are looking to distance the organisation (for whatever motive) from the Roman Catholic church but then insist on describing it as a broad Christian organisation - hinting presumably at a bigger base. But the statement refers to fidelity to "the church". There is no one christian church.Contaldo80 (talk) 12:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Fidelity to the teachings of the Church stipulated as a core value of the organization is a noteworthy aspect in a proper desctription thereof. As C-FAM has no need to define the Church, an encyclopedia doesn't need so either. Furthermore, the reader will know the Church is Christian. –Joppa Chong (talk) 02:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry this is not good enough. There is no such thing as "The Church". We either make clear that it refers to a particular Church or we leave out the suggestion that it's a Christian organisation (as there is no source supporting this claim). It could be the "Church of Satan" for all I know. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Satanists in general are quite in favor of abortion and not led by a Knight of Malta:-) Denying evidence of the Christian corporate identity means you cannot refer to a specific denomination anyway. It seems to me there happened a name change in their facebook profile from "Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute" to "Center for Family and Human Rights", hence their omission to specify which Church's teachings they obeye makes sense imho. –Joppa Chong (talk) 02:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think what's happening is that the organisation has deliberately changed it's name as it doesn't want to give the impression that it is too connected with the Catholic Church - for political/ presentational reasons. This is despite the fact that the board and management are indeed Catholics. I think as editors we need to be careful about helping them to play this game. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably, C-FAM didn't nastily drop people off its boards just as a means of demonstrating confessional independence. This would be no surprise and should not be our cup of tea because WP:Wikipedia is not a battleground. –Joppa Chong (talk) 04:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you implying I have a grudge about something? Contaldo80 (talk) 10:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * From time to time, the grudge-hedgehogs come along here. –Joppa Chong (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Rather than imply and guess I suggest you say clearly here (with supporting evidence) what you think my grudge is and why I have one. Assume good faith. Otherwise I suggest you apologise and stop wasting my time. You, however, do have past form with this article and have previously referred to disparagingly to the promotion of "an LGBT agenda". Your prejudices have been articulated and noted. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven't spread prejudices on this encyclopedia and some questions like the one I had asked are justified as the promotion of an LGBT agenda within Wikipedia by some editors is an open secret. Talking of Church of Satan, judging that they play their game etc. indicates you have a problem with keeping the due neutrality. –Joppa Chong (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "Promotion of an LGBT agenda within Wikipedia by some editors is an open secret." Pathetic. If there is a genuine issue then report it to administrators and stop trying to smear or impugn other editors. You never responded to the point as to why the organisation should be identified as Christian and not Catholic. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It should be clearer now whose bias is addressed. Once again, the supposed Facebook profile name change and the absence of a clear Catholic self-identification should make us cautious about stating which particular Church C-Fam refers to in the self-portrait section on their main homepage. Bear in mind WP:No original research. However, their Christian corporate identity is quite obvious. –Joppa Chong (talk) 19:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Why is their Christian corporate identity obvious?! What words are you able to cite that demonstrate it is obvious? Contaldo80 (talk) 08:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This cannot only be my task because you wanted to imply a Catholic label. You provided a source stating that the organization was formerly known as the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute. Maybe their concept has changed to be more open to other denominations, especially Evangelicals. Nevertheless, we know for sure: in the cited C-Fam website section, fidelity to the teachings of the Church is declared to be among their core values. Given their background, it conveys that at least a Christian corporate identity is maintained. –Joppa Chong (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The clue is in the fact that they refer to "The Church", all their board members are Roman Catholics, and they were previously known as the Catholic Institute. That kind of demonstrates my point that its a Catholic organisation. Your supposition, on the other hand, that "maybe their concept has changed to be more open to other denominations" is unproven and conjecture. The onus is on you to demonstrate a Christian - as opposed to Catholic - organisation. The two are not the same. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * An acknowlegment of C-FAM's Christian corporate identity is precondition for emphasising how Catholic they are now. Catholic Institute is unknown to me, the external source deems C-FAM formerly known as the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute. The renaming cannnot represent a proven trick as an honest change in concept is more than possible. Unfortunately, our deep link to the C-FAM webpage regarding the obscure Board of Patrons has perished. The alternative link is related to Lord Windsor but no reference of his Board membership. −Joppa Chong (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * For a temporary solution, I have cut out the said unbacked material about WP:Living people after my check revealed the notice of a Board of Patrons disappeared from the C-FAM website. We need

more valid in-depth info... –Joppa Chong (talk) 23:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC) Gosh what a coincidence! There's us talking about how the board of patrons are all Catholic and at the same time the web link on the C-Fam website goes dead after the material is removed. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have called the Board of Patrons obscure because I never saw it mentioned on their website. However, what I appreciate is that the article slowly gets out of its (almost) stub size. –Joppa Chong (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Best Buddies
I don't think inclusion of this is significant. It's a bit of PR. Fairly uninteresting and not particularly informative. The national catholic reporter is also not really a mainstream source. Why do we need to include this text? Any evidence Ruse and his "team" have participated more than once? Contaldo80 (talk) 09:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This is evident as both sources state it, even documenting a considerable ambition, success and emotional connection to that fundraising and sporting event for handicapped people. We also have a wider scope beyond the mainstream media. By the way, I don't believe that the watchdog food cited in the article now can boost to be more mainstream than the National Catholic Register. –Joppa Chong (talk) 03:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Do we still refer to "handicapped people" in 2017? Can we get some other sources for this material if we're going to include it - it just seems PR fluff. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Nevertheless, the so-called Register is indeed a serious newspaper showing C-Fam repeatedly involved in this event challenge series for the ones many still call impaired, disabled, or worse. –Joppa Chong (talk) 05:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Fine. I still think this is a pretty daft inclusion and no more than PR spin. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * My respect for tolerating the commitment sentence as Wikipedia does not ban this sort of information about an important part of social life. The Best Buddies homepage source states that the team Brandan Kelly/C-Fam raised at least $50.000 for the project. Now the dash of pity: Changing the section title from ″Social commitment″ to ″Wider fundraising″ insinuates the engagement would be embedded in C-Fam's fundraising activities for its own. This violates WP:NPOV. Whilst fundraising (i.e. for Best Buddies) is acceptable as the topic, ″Wider″ should be removed. –Joppa Chong (talk) 21:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * In what sense is this "social commitment"? PR spin. Total waste of space. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The involvement is rooted in serious pro-life activism in support of down syndrome children, it dates back to at least 2012 when C-Fam teamed up with the Lejeune Foundation in order to sponsor the Challenge, see the National Review quote. I wonder how C-Fam stem it given their limited size and resources. Why discussing PR charity here but not questioning this practice in Wikipedia starlet bios? –Joppa Chong (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "Pro-life activism"? What?! What has Best Buddies got to do with that? Contaldo80 (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Pro-life activism refers to the anti-abortion movement. You will know the very high abortion rate of down syndrome babies which I guess no one who declares to care for them will ignore. However, on this talk page, Best Buddies only matters as far as C-Fam is concerned. –Joppa Chong (talk) 19:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm worried now. Your comments suggest to me a degree of SYNTHESIS and I'm concerned that you may not be displaying objective neutrality. I don't know what the abortion rate is for unborn foetuses that display signs of downs syndrome. But to be honest the material in the article does not make a link to so-called "pro-life activism". You are making the link. Unless you provide some reliable second hand sources to back up your claims then I'm going to suggest we take all this material out as you seem to be pushing a particular narrative here not supported by the references. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Those who read the sources I linked are presented the pro-life background of C-Fam's engagement for the Best Buddies Challenge, and the very high prevalence of abortion in relationship to identified down-syndrome cases. You had asked me a slightly off-topic question which invited me to speculate and it was a courtesy to answer it. –Joppa Chong (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Ruse's calls for the criminalization of homosexuality
It is in the cited source, Joppa, were you looking at a different link by mistake? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , experience indicates that Joppa rejects all content that is in any way critical. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This distorting ad hominem approach does not convince. The report cites Heidi Beirich/SPLC and does not verify or fall in line with her view, hence it is wrong to just credit the report's author. –Joppa Chong (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have restored the material, since, again, it is in the source. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The correct attribution matters, you ought to care more for the clean-up instead of leaving it to others, i.e. me again, especially as far as WP:LIVING is concerned. –Joppa Chong (talk) 00:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Joppa, your change was not an improvement. "Appreciation" is a bizarre word choice, and you've once again removed the use of the Reuters source which talks about Ruse's support for criminalizing homosexuality. I don't think it's me, Guy, or Avatar317 that's being careless here. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think we’re moving towards TBAN territory. This has gone on way too long. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

As I linked information within the edit summaries, it should be clear that 1. in the Reuters interview, Beirich did neither disclose sources for this reference to particular detail about Ruse, nor did she state whether she agrees

2. the use of the word "noting" in this respect is against WP:SAID. It may be possible to still further improve the wording but "criticise" is already in the text and I tried to solve a problem, not to create one.

The SPLC website quotation now appropriately leaves it open whether it is about legislation to come or which has been passed. Voicing support says little about the question of having or taking real influence. –Joppa Chong (talk) 01:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , what is clear is that you have some personal reason for wanting this article, and the article on Austin Ruse, to be as flattering as possible, to the extent that you misrepresent, whitewash and cherry-pick sources to present a misleading picture of the subject.
 * Ruse has repeatedly called for homosexuality to be criminalized, and applauded the Russian laws preventing discussion of homosexuality, laws which mirror regressive and since-repealed legislation elsewhere.
 * That's his problem, not ours. We are not here to act as the crap umbrella for anti-LGBT activism. If shit rains down on them and him, we will show our readers a picture of the shit, not help them to wash it off and pretend it never happened. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , what if I said the converse was true (without prejudice to your assertions) and that you and yours are prejudiced against Ruse and his ilk, with a vendetta to paint the most unflattering picture as possible, on a jihad to track down the stinkiest coverage possible that might meet Wikipedia's standards in order to slant the article against the subjects?
 * Together with 's untiring misrepresentation of WP:SPS policy you've done quite a hatchet job on a large swath of articles. Although seemed to think that WP:SPS was just fine as-is when it came to articles outside the pro-life topic. Curious that--there's a clear double-standard being enacted here. Elizium23 (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I've never heard of the guy before, and never encountered his name in any context other than Wikipedia, so why would I have an agenda? Incidentally, is he actually pro-life? Lots of sources for him being anti-abortion, but where has he supported wider access to healthcare, commonsense gun controls, or an end to the death penalty? Guy (help! - typo?) 21:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It might be interesting to ask whether Ruse has more responsibility than others to develop a consistent life ethic, but not for this talk page. –Joppa Chong (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It might be interesting to ask whether Ruse has more responsibility than others to develop a consistent life ethic, but not for this talk page. –Joppa Chong (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)