Talk:Chalcedon Foundation/Archive 1

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

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

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

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

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

I am repeating this on all pages in which this new cat was added so communities there can discuss. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The similar category Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights has been added. Now, even if it gets renamed to something more neutral, we still have a problem with sourcing and relevance. The SPLC's hate group designation is based on statements by Rushdoony, but doesn't quite any publications of the Chaldecon Foundation. Hence, we cannot say that the organization as an organization is anti-LGBT or whatever. It would need to be reliably sourced. StAnselm (talk) 07:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The Institutes of Biblical Law is a publication of the Chalcedon Foundation - states itself to be so, as do reliable secondary sources like . Restoring category. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 14:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I think you misreading the source. It says that CF publishes the Chalcedon Report, and that it "began to gain momentum" with the publications of Rushdoony's Institutes. It doesn't say CF published the Institutes - indeed, the The Institutes of Biblical Law article says it was published by The Craig Press. StAnselm (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The book's subtitle is "A Chalcedon Study" and you really need to be splitting hairs to argue that a source which states that Rushdoony's foundation gained momentum from the publication of Rushdoony's book is insisting that the book was unrelated to the foundation. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, I never noticed that before. The preface says it was made possible by the "Chalcedon publication fund". It doesn't mentioned the "Chalcedon Foundation" at all. I suspect they are legally distinct entities. StAnselm (talk) 02:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In any case, we still need more than just the SPLC listing to include the category. It shouldn't be too hard to find something. StAnselm (talk) 02:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The book is sold by the Chalcedon Foundation. – MrX 02:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, certainly. And volumes 2 and 3 were published by Ross House Books, which was later merged into CF. But that in itself doesn't make CF "standing for" anti-LGBT rights. To add the organization to the category as proposed we need far more than a bare association. Of course, it's rather hard to find what CF stands for specifically - their belief statement is almost entirely about what they don't believe. StAnselm (talk) 02:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not at all hard. Their website contains dozens of articles about how terrible they think judges and teachers are for creating anti-bullying policies and legalizing same-sex marriage and so on. Let us end this charade of the Chalcedon Foundation standing for fuzzy bunnies. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is something current, from their web site:


 * and


 * and


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


 * I wonder if you even tried to do a simple Google search to see if what Roscelese has been demonstrating all along, might actually be true. It seems as if you believe it's your prerogative to police articles for perceived affronts to you POV, without actually contributing to make them better. I would respectfully offer that this kind of behavior borders on WP:DISRUPTIVE. – MrX 03:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind what it says in WP:CAT, "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having." In other words, we look at what is in secondary sourced when we do the ctaegorization, not so much the primary sources. StAnselm (talk) 03:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You mean like the defining characteristic that would get the nation's leading authority on hate groups to add Chalcedon Foundation to the list of anti-gay hate groups? Insomesia (talk) 05:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the SPLC doesn't mention any CF publications - they made their listing solely on the basis of Rushdoony's book. Furthermore, if you do a Google Books search for the Chalcedon Foundation, the LGBT stance doesn't seem to come up. Which is to say, I'm not sure how prominent it is in their thought, either in their own writings, or as presented in secondary sources. After all, Rushdoony believed in the death penalty for all OT capital crimes. Homosexuality gets the barest mention in the his article. StAnselm (talk) 06:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that sounds like you're engaging in original research. Of all the people who would speak on their thoughts and processes you really don't come to mind. Insomesia (talk) 06:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you mean my comment that "LGBT issues are not prominent in CF's publication"? Yes, that would certainly be OR, and I wouldn't dream of adding that assertion to the article. But we don't have a reliable source either way. Which brings us back to the categorization - there isn't sufficient support to add it. StAnselm (talk) 07:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I do agree that like all categories there should be content to support the category in the article so that likely should precede. Insomesia (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The SPLC's opinion of Rushdoony is not particularly significant
User:Insomesia added the sentence The SPLC also wrote that Rushdoony opposed interracial marriage, enforced integration, and was a Holocaust denier, which I have now removed. Quite apart from the fact that to say Rushdoony "enforced integration" is just plan silly, the SPLC's view of Rushdoony isn't all that significant. Don't get me wrong - the SPLC's listing of CF as a hate group is important, and that should be in the article, along with a reason why they listed it. But here's the thing - CF was listed as an anti-gay hate group. So comments about racism and holocaust denial aren't particularly relevant. StAnselm (talk) 10:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This was a part of their assessment of the group as a hate group, I guess we should spell that out more. I reworded it so it's clear it has to do with the hate group listing which you agree is important. Often those who display homophobia are also racists or hatred towards other minorities so this is unsurprising. Insomesia (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's get consensus here first, shall we? The whole context of the report was a listing as an anti-gay group. The article currently explains why they listed them. Their other passing comments are not necessary. Remember, Chalcedon Foundation didn't publish the book. StAnselm (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope. It was as a hate group. And it's original research to separate out his racism. I wish you'd get consensus to remove this before edit warring. Insomesia (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand about WP:BRD. The idea is you add something, and if someone disagrees with it, you discuss it with them in order to gain consensus, and then you add it back in. StAnselm (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My experience with you is that you delete first or until you get the version you prefer, then explain yourself if compelled. Perhaps my experience with you has just been isolated and usually you discuss concerns and arrive at consensus first. In any case this is sourced material about why this group is considered a hate group and its dishonest to present it as only an anti-gay issue. That's false and an insult to readers. Insomesia (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hang on, I was the one who started this thread. Why didn't you wait for a consensus before you added the material back in? StAnselm (talk) 00:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's just agree that you have it the way you want and now we are discussing. So ... please explain why this sourced content explaining Chalcedon Foundation's designation as a hate group that explains it was also due in part to his racism should be suppressed. Insomesia (talk) 00:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The article cited is "A Dozen Major Groups Help Drive the Religious Right’s Anti-Gay Crusade". It is specifically about anti-gay groups, some of which are also hate groups. There is no suggestion that Rushdoony's perceived racism is what "bumps" CF from being "merely" anti-gay to being a fully-fledged hate group. No, it is particularly described in the source as an anti-gay hate group. Which is why the other issues are unnecessary to include. StAnselm (talk) 00:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's listed as an anti-gay hate group, calling for the execution of gay people, but SPLC also lists the racism and Holocaust denial in their explanation...it's not our place to decide they didn't really think it was important. Compare this source - again listed in anti-gay groups, again with racism and antisemitism foregrounded as additional reasons. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. I added a line about their other bigotry. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it belongs. It is not directly relevant to the hate group listing (which is specifically as an anti-gay hate group) and SPLC is only really relevant as a critical source in relation to the hate group listing. For more scholarly criticisms of Rushdoony, see the Rousas John Rushdoony article. StAnselm (talk) 20:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And please do not add fake references. It wasn't what the SPLC said at all. StAnselm (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Pumping
I removed a POV tag that was placed for the following stated reason:
 * phrase "continuing to pump out" is POV to say the least. Is this attributable?  I don't even see this in the ref

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

In the future, please do adequate research before tagging. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you're wrong. The "pumping out" designation refers to those groups that republish the work of Paul Cameron. It is a generic reason that doesn't apply to the Chalcedon Foundation. CF was listed for a different reason - namely, a belief in the continuation of Old Testament death penalty laws. StAnselm (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's what the source says:
 * Even as some well-known anti-gay groups like Focus on the Family moderate their views, a hard core of smaller groups, most of them religiously motivated, have continued to pump out demonizing propaganda aimed at homosexuals and other sexual minorities. These groups’ influence reaches far beyond what their size would suggest, because the “facts” they disseminate about homosexuality are often amplified by certain politicians, other groups and even news organizations.
 * The article goes on to list the Chalcedon Foundation among these smaller groups. The comment is very clearly not limited to Cameron. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all, it's a generic reason, like the "propagation of known falsehoods" one. As I've argues elsewhere, it shouldn't be used at all. But what exactly is the "demonizing propaganda". It's not the call for the death penalty, is it? Is it the use of the word "abominators"? If we don't know, then we shouldn't include it. StAnselm (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

ISS, the phrase "pumping out" is indeed POV. That fact that it was a quote, means it should have been in quotes already, instead of using Wikipedia's voice. The latest version of the article has this phrase properly attributed. This is why we use tags in the first place. And FYI, not every tag requires a TP entry -- especially since a major rewrite is in progress by Mr. X. who I'm confident would addressed the matter. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 20:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like you have no objection to keeping the attributed quote. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually I do. That statement is too generic and aimed at 18 groups.  If criticism is to be made, it should come from the section in that ref that spefically deals with Chalcedon and not paint the organization with the same brush as 17 other organizations.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 21:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. StAnselm (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's the lead of the article, so it applies to everything in it. I reject your argument as absurd. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The section in question is not in the lead. Are you posting in the correct section?   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 21:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The quote is from the lead of the cited source. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And after reading the section, there is plenty of negative information that could go into this article (assuming that is the reason for ISS deisres to have the pump language included) that is far more unflattering than the original statement in question.  little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 21:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that the SPLC's verbatim statement is viewed as POV is not a valid reason for not including it if it is properly attributed and if it adds necessary content. Also, the word 'generic' is misnomer. What I think is meant is general. A general attribute can apply to 18 groups. It was not made as an exclusive statement, therefore can apply to everything that follows it. In any case, if it needs to be change, please change it. Deleting it is not constructive. – MrX 21:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


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


 * There needs to be more effort to actually improve the article by including more or better information, or by revising for clarity, MoS, style, readibility, structure, flow, concision, etc. Efforts to remove sourced content for no other reason that the personal POV is disruptive. – MrX 21:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This is exactly when we mustn't paraphrase. The SPLC opinions must be presented exactly as is. And it's all very well to say that you've worked hard adding stuff to the article, but if it isn't relevant or helpful, then it hasn't improved the article. A comment about the hate group listing, and a note about the death penalty for "homosexual and other abominators" (being the reason for the listing) is all we need from the SPLC. StAnselm (talk) 21:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


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

Reconstruction
Here is the relevant cite from the SPLC ref.

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

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

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

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

The key is we must attribute the issues the SPLC found with Reconstruction. A smorgasboard if you ask me. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 21:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The SPLC is a reliable source. We need to cite it, but don't need to attribute it for factual claims. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The important thing is that criticism (or perceived criticism) must be CF-specific. We need to be careful about saying that CF is Reconstructionist and Person X says Y about Reconstructionism. That would be original synthesis, and that was the reasoning behind the coatrack tag. StAnselm (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So I disagree with this edit. The previous version stated very clearly why CF was hate-listed. The new version talks about Reconstructionism and Rushdoony, but not directly about CF. StAnselm (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The criticism has to be attributed and accurate. If the lead of the SPLC's argument makes a statement that applies to the CF, we may use it. What we're not allowed to do is synthesize, but that's not what we're doing here. As for the edit you just expressed disagreement about, at least it's trying to accurately reflect the reasons for the hate group designation. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I restored my edit, but to the correct section. I also fixed some text in there. I expect it might get reverted, but wanted to save a good copy in the edit history while we work this out. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 22:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I would think that endorsing slavery is more significant than opposing interracial marriage, so I'm wondering why you kept the latter but not the former? Also, see below for a quote about stoning, which I believe is relevant. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize I removed that. I thought I had that in my section which is why I replaced the entire graph.  Feel free to add it.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 22:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's ok. I have to go for a bit, so feel free to add it in my absence. There's also more material along the same lines below, in that quote about stoning. Finally, there's currently some duplication from where you moved the passage to another section; please delete one. I'd prefer to keep some of the material with the SPLC hate group section. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

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


 * That's correct. Rushdoony is considered to be the father of Christian Reconstruction. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Tagging
First, if you add a tag, you need to immediately open up a section to discuss it. Failure to do so may result in the tag being summarily removed. Second, this tag is bogus. Yes, there are sections on Reconstructionism and Dominionism, but they're combinations of brief background information and specific ties to the article subject. In short, the tag does not belong. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll back off from this issue for the moment - the other one is more important. StAnselm (talk) 20:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Batting zero
This edit is also a mistake. First, you removed the entire sentence instead of working on its citations, which is what you objected to. Second, the SPLC did indeed point out racism and sexism, but I added an additional citation to support the sexism. You need to revert your mistaken edit and then leave the article alone; you haven't made one good edit here all day. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know what "batting zero" means. There are four issues here - one is the racism, which I have argued above to be irrelevant, since it does not directly impinge on the hate group listing. Secondly, there is the sexism, which is not present in the 18 Anti-Gay Groups and Their Propaganda article at all - where did you get it? The third is attributing a primary source to a secondary source. Finally, to add a bit about "rejection of female equality", attributable only to a primary source is not allowed on Wikipedia. StAnselm (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a baseball term. It refers to failing to hit the ball over and over again. Each of your edits has been harmful or destructive.
 * Racism is relevant in that it contributes to the hate group listing. Read what the SPLC says on this.
 * Sexism is relevant and is supported by an additional citation, just in case it's not clear enough in the SPLC.
 * I have no idea what you're talking about. Be more clear.
 * Actually, we are allowed to use primary sources.


 * In the meantime, revert your changes. It's as if the two of you have this article under attack, deleting anything you personally dislike. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have already commented extensively on this.
 * Not only is it unclear in the SPLC source, it isn't there at all.
 * I'm sorry for not being clear. You said The SPLC also notes ... a rejection of female equality and backed it up, not from an SPLC source, but from a CF article.
 * Please read WP:PRIMARY. StAnselm (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

1. Diffs or it didn't happen.

2. The SPLC says:
 * North has called publicly for the execution of women who have abortions. Stoning, he has said, would be the preferable method because "the implements of execution are available to everyone at virtually no cost."
 * According to Clarkson, Rushdoony, who is North's father-in-law, also suggests the death penalty be used to punish those guilty of "apostasy (abandonment of the faith), heresy, blasphemy, witchcraft, astrology, adultery, 'sodomy or homosexuality,' incest, striking a parent, incorrigible juvenile delinquency, and in the case of women, 'unchastity before marriage.'"
 * I'm going to suggest that this SPLC citation supports, among other things, sexism.

3. See immediately above.

4. Thanks, I've done so. What part do you believe is relevant? I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


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

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

Proselytizes
Contrary to this edit, "proselytizes" is a neutral word when applied to religious doctrine. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Except it wasn't used in the sense of "evangelism", as in the Proselytism article. StAnselm (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You mean where it says, "it now refers to any religions' or religious individuals' attempts to convert people to their beliefs or even any attempt to convert people to another point of view, religious or not"? I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In any case, "promotes" is a much better word. StAnselm (talk) 01:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with ISS about the neutrality of the word. It's not a perjorative as far as I'm aware.  And the word is a better description, though I don't have a major problem with "promotes".   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 02:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite apart from any negative sense, it usually means to win converts to a religion or denomination, not persuading people to a particular viewpoint within a religion. StAnselm (talk) 09:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * To remind you: "or even any attempt to convert people to another point of view, religious or not". I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And the article notes that the World Council of Churches' document "uses proselytism in the negative sense only". StAnselm (talk) 09:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting. When did Wikipedia join the World Council of Churches? I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 10:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

SPLC rationale in lead
As with a number of other articles, User:Insomesia has tagged the SPLC listing in the lead, as needing a rationale. Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, Heterosexuals Organized for a Moral Environment and American Family Association have had the generic reason added, Illinois Family Institute and Parents Action League have an organization-specific reason, while the tag was removed from Family Research Council without change. An organization-specific reason would be vastly preferable, so I suggest, "for its advocacy of the death penalty for homosexuals". StAnselm (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the designation doesn't appear to be just to be soley because of the Calcedon's position on homosexuals, so this is not appropriate. The tagging isn't a controversey like it is for the Family Research Council, so an explanation of the controversey in the lead is not required per MOS.  Why don't we just leave it as they are labeld as a hate group byu the SPLC?   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 16:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that that was bit selective. It should either be short and ambiguous as it is as of LGR's edit, or should be expanded to encompass all of the major reasons. I don't really have a preference myself, but there seems to be a tug-of-war in all of these SPLC-hate-group-related articles. I wonder if we can have an RfC to address them all at once. I've been having a similar discussion with Arthur Rubin. Until this is addressed more globally, I think it's going to remain a bone of contention. – MrX 17:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This is all related to the efforts of some editors to make the articles about organizations that are obviously anti-gay undue in weight. I've no idea where one would even call an RfC for this, as there is no master article.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 18:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I don't think a rationale is at all necessary. StAnselm (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree that a master RfC would be helpful at all. Up to this point we've had to debate little nuances on each article anyway so one RfC is unlikely to be used for all these articles. I see the issue of some editors trying to white-wash the bone-chilling hatred of extremists groups troubling but I respect their right to argue about sourcing and policies. As for this article it's a Christian based group, so a hate group designation is very surprising. Insomesia (talk) 22:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I wouldn't call the SPLC hatred of extremist groups "bone-chilling". StAnselm (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I was referring, of course, to the bone-chilling hate and bile coming from these Christian and "family" groups. Their actions lend one to believe they are using the guise of their groups to spread hatred. That's surprising for any group, let alone a Christian or family group. Perhaps that is why they got a spotlight on them, because they are so vocal and public about their extremist and un-Christ-like actions and words. Insomesia (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And where is this white washing you speak of?  little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 00:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The suppression at each stage of these discussions; the use of SPLC as a source at all, the positioning of this surprising and notable criticism in the very end of the article until forced to also summarize in the lead, the ongoing battles to have this surprising notable characteristic explained at all in the lead where a reasonable person would expect a surprising statement to be explained, at least in brief. I think that comes of as disingenuous. Insomesia (talk) 01:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, whatever reasons editors may have, it looks like the emerging consensus here is that a rationale is either unnecessary or undesirable. StAnselm (talk) 02:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And I dispute that finding and am happy to get more eyes here like has been done on so many other occasions and affirm we need to explain this surprising notable characteristic of the group. I think we should cut to the chase and start drafting language for the lead summarizing why they were designated as a hate group - a surprising notable thing. Insomesia (talk) 02:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * @Insomesia: While there are some that challenge the SPLC as a RS for these articles, they are a fringe minority. I can't think of one editor who denies this and edits here with any frequency.  And you really should sit down and read WP:LEAD again.  The fact that this and other articles have the SPLC anti-gay hate group tag in the lead is sufficient for the reader to understand that Chalcedon and other orgnanizations have passed the SPLC's litmus test for what constitutes an anti-gay hate group.  You are asking for this part of the lead to be expanded to include the "why".  What about other parts of the lead, do they deserve expansion too?  If your answer is "yes", then the lead becomes something more than what a lead should be according to the MOS.  If your answer is "no", then you are making the article WP:UNDUE.  Editors whose intent is to over plaster this and other articles with "anti-gay" are disruptive to say the least.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 03:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think one for and two against establishes much of a consensus. How about getting input from Roscelese, StillStanding and maybe Demack who have also been active editors in this article? – MrX 02:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I was using the word "emerging" intentionally. But I don't have a problem leaving the tag there for a few days to see if anyone (a) agrees with Insomesia, and (b) suggests a wording that achieves consensus. StAnselm (talk) 02:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure Roscelese and StillStanding are watching the page and will join the discussion as they see fit. I have posted a note on Demack's talk page. It's interesting looking at those statistics - you and me are way in front. StAnselm (talk) 02:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm watching. On the whole, the article is shaping up. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The leads of most of these articles are in fact too short but the attention these processes have brought about is helping to address those issues. Per WP:Lead;

"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences."


 * As the hate group designation is often the most notable thing about these groups it should be stated quickly and explained in summary style, this group was named as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center because ...  In this way we cover a surprising and notable aspect of these groups, likely one of the few things that lends them notability. Insomesia (talk) 10:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, but unlike many other listed groups, the hate group designation is certainly not the most notable thing about the Chalcedon Foundation. StAnselm (talk) 11:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Reasonable people can disagree on what is the most notable thing, however it is confirmed that the hate group designation is one of the most notable things about the Chalcedon Foundation. Insomesia (talk) 11:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Confirmed by whom? Oh, and if is what you say is true, this becomes a coatrack.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 15:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The hate group designation itself is probably not the most significant characteristic of this group. After all, it has been around for 47 years. What is perhaps much more prominent is how this group has influenced the Christian right, and more importantly, the US government. There are connections with the Christian Coalition, the Bush administration, the oil industry, other hate groups, other pro-theocracy organizations, etc.. As one peels back each layer of the onion, one sees that there are tentacles that weave to and fro between some very powerful organizations and people. – MrX 16:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm not seeing a grand conspiracy here. Chalcedon is not the next incarnation of the Illuminati, Freemasons or even the Stonecutters, rather just another run of the mill fire and brimstone evangicals that have popped in and out of existance the last 150 years or so.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 18:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

That's because nobody here is talking about conspiracy theories, so you're doing a fine job beating that straw man. In the meantime, the rest of us are agreed on the fact that its hate group status is pretty important but would like to also cover the rest of this organization's history and activities. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Insomesia, if you read this section you should be able to tell that there is no consensus for including the "why" tag at the moment. Thus you are edit warring. Please try and achieve a new consensus before including the information. Consult WP:LEAD for more information. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 00:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no consensus for removing the "why" tag, it's poor writing which is to be avoided. That a religious/parent group is labelled a hate group is surprising information. We should supply at least a brief explanation. So to that point I see you as edit-warring. Insomesia (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus to add it in the first place. You know, that BRD thingy?  little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 00:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't add a tag by consensus. You add it to open up a discussion. Trying to remove the tag instead of discussing it is counterproductive.
 * So, to get to the point, the tag is there because the article fails to explain the hate group status, right? Why is this? I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You add clean-up tags because there are obvious problems with the article. Insomesia (talk) 07:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What I was asking is why the article's lead fails to briefly explain the hate group status. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The "why" is already explained in the body. The "why" is not required, and fact discouraged because leads are supposed to be concise. The fact that this org is labeled an anti-gay hate group in the lead already is more then enough to let the reader know that they probably do or say things that are hateful to gays. To add it to the lead without the "why" having sufficent weight is a POV edit. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 02:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't find that at all persuasive. There's no good reason to exclude a brief mention of why. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:IDHT and since Adjwilley was kind enough to introduce you to Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement, your comment ranks as a "contradiction".  little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 02:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me help you out here: the reason all I need to do is contradict is that you didn't actually make your case. At best, you have a straw man argument based on not having a huge lead, which is irrelevant because a brief explanation won't make the lead huge. There, I've offered a counterargument. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Didn't tgwilley suggest that your arguments be in the top 3 of the pyramid? So let me refute your argument that a brief explanation won't make the lead huge is irrelevant.  The addition to the lead violates the MOS. From WP:LEAD (emphasis added)


 * The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects
 * It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies

Is the reason that Chalcedon is labeld an antigay hate group by the SPLC one of the most important aspects of the notability organization? Not according to the sources, which makes this desired edit undue. Really, you should take that chart to heart before you hit "save this page" and try to make your arguments fit the top three elements. You will annoy fewer people and your arugments will stronger. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 03:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If you won't step up to the plate with a plausible argument, I'll never have some basis for hitting those top three. The problem with your argument is that it has a false premise; you're claiming that the reasons that it's called hate group isn't one of the most important aspects, despite the fact that being called a hate group is. Your subjective interpretation of the sources doesn't help you any. So, in conclusion, come back when you have an argument that isn't trivially dismissed, ok? I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Contradiction & Name calling Of course the reason "why" isn't as important as the designation. Without the SPLC designation there would be no inclusion in the article in the first place.  Is it a surprise that a group labeled as an antigay hate group espouses antigay ideology?   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 04:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said, if you won't step up to the plate with a plausible argument, I'll never have some basis for hitting those top three. For example, you accuse me of name-calling, but the counterargument is that nowhere in my previous comment do I call you any names. In short, you really need to stop premises whose falsehood is easily demonstrated. Thanks for playing, though. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * So, in conclusion, come back when you have an argument that isn't trivially dismissed, ok? is a taunt, simliar to yelling "loser" at someone. Leading with your chin as you so often do demonstrates your desire to treat wikipedia as your personal battleground.  Why do you continue to taunt, disrupt and act the marytr?  Those are not admirable traits in an collaborative enviornment.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 06:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Your edit comment, "like teaching calculus to a pig", is an outright personal attack, so I don't think you should be taking great insult at a comment directed explicitly at your arguments instead of at you. You're the a black pot critiquing a white kettle for having a dark spot. You keep baiting and baiting, hoping for a more vulgar response, and when it's not forthcoming, you play up what I did say in an effort to make it sound worse. We're done here. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, everything with you is a personal attack. Never try to teach calculus to a horse; it wastes your time---and it annoys the horse. ---ROBERT A. HEINLEIN.  Sorry, I got my animals mixed up.    little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 06:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm also not persuaded. We offer up a tease of a statement, that a parents group is labelled an anti-gay hate group but leave the reader hanging as to why. As the majority of readers will only read the lead we owe it to them to expand the entire lead and do at least a merely adequate job of summarizing the article. Insomesia (talk) 07:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. As far as I can tell, if you push aside the incivility, the only argument provided is that we don't want the lead to be too large, but there's no reason to think that a brief explanation would somehow swell it to an unreasonable size. In fact, we offer brief explanations for other SPLC-designated hate groups and it works out just fine. What makes the CF so different? I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The lead is actually too small, IMHO. But since this seems to be another game of delay, delete, deflect, I've started another SPLC anti-gay hate group RfC. I hear we get a free sandwich or something once we do 20 of them! Insomesia (talk) 07:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Should the explanation of why the Chalcedon Foundation has been designated a hate group be omitted from the lead?
The Chalcedon Foundation is a religious organization that has been designated an anti-gay hate group by the nonprofit civil rights organization Southern Poverty Law Center. Should the explanation of why the Chalcedon Foundation has been designated a hate group be omitted from the lead? Some editors feel none is required, while others feel it begs the question of why were they designated a hate group. As studies have shown the majority of readers only read the lead of articles, one solution may be to expand the entire lead. More input to resolve what should is welcome. Insomesia (talk) 07:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The relevant portion of the lead reads (as of this sigining) reads The Chalcedon Foundation has been listed as an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.12:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * No, the explanation must be included, it's a disservice to our readers not to do so. Expanding the entire lead may help. Insomesia (talk) 07:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Include in lead - We can't omit mention of the SPLC hate group designation, but once we include it, we can't make it a tease, either. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: This RfC would be a lot more helpful were the proposed wording included for what the reason actually is. Are we actually able to summarize the reason in a single sentence? The body of the article takes three or four sentences to do this. StAnselm (talk) 08:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As the level of edit-warring has been consistent with those blocking every aspect of the hate group designations I deemed it more expeditious to simply ask if any reason should be given. Once established that a description should be given then expanding the lead to include an explanation can follow. Likely there is more content that should be summarized that we are also leaving out. Insomesia (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Omit The MOS says a lead should be concise and should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points. The reader has been told that this orgnaization is an anti-gay hate-group.  Listing the reasons already in the body is superfluous.  Why would anyone be surprised or informed to learn that a group that has been labeled anti-gay would take positions that are anti-gay?   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 13:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Most readers will only read the lead. This is why it should summarize the article and not tease. Insomesia (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Then as it currently stands this would make the lead undue. And this is borne out by the preponderance of the sources,   Also, the assertion that the current lead is a tease has no merit, as it it is not hinting or suggesting as to the rationale behind the SPLC designation.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 21:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It teases as to why any religious group would have earned the designation of hate group. The lead likely should be expanded to summarize more of the article, this would also blunt all undue concerns. Insomesia (talk) 22:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. This is a POV edit which will make the lead completely undue and have no weight according to the sourcing being used.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 22:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Your concern is noted, we may have to just disagree on this. Insomesia (talk) 23:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Include WP:LEAD say the lead shouldn't 'tease' the reader by omitting relevant detail. A concise explanation of why the designation was made is necessary. FurrySings (talk) 15:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Include a concise summary of why the Chalcedon Foundation is designated as a hate group—it is very significant, second only the the foundations's role in reconstructionism/dominionism. Per WP:MOS:"...the lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article." – MrX 21:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Omit at this stage. Deciding in principle without deciding on a wording is fraught with difficulties. StAnselm (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As you and others editors have fought that no mention should occur, this is the logical first step to improving the article, to address poor writing in the lead that has been perpetuated by edit-warring to remove content other editors feel is needed. Insomesia (talk) 22:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Saying I have "fought that no mention should occur" is a blatant lie. I was the one who started the discussion at Talk:Chalcedon Foundation above, and I made a suggestion for what the rationale might be. StAnselm (talk) 22:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Call it what you will, you certainly reversed your opinion here, then here decided consensus was against it. Your track record has been to find ways to mitigate or removed this information whenever possible, forcing those who desire the information to double-down on sources and start RfC's. This may not be a pattern from where you sit but to me it feels like the same arguements on a different day and these discussions have been going around for well over a month now. Insomesia (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Exclude from lede, include in body. It takes too much space to explain the reasons properly, and this is a minor issue with regards to the organisation as a whole, per WP:UNDUE. -- 202.124.74.178 (talk) 02:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Your edit history is very, very short. It's unusual for someone with no history to participate in RFC's. Is there something you want to share? I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, that would be what's known as a dynamic IP address. StAnselm (talk) 04:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * StAnselm is correct about dynamic IP addresses. As to the lede, if anything should go there, it would be a very brief summary of the Foundation's beliefs. Then you could add something like "these have lead to it being listed as an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center." But trying to list a detailed SPLC critique in the lede without a positive statement of what the Foundation believes is both way too confusing and WP:POV. -- 202.124.72.24 (talk) 12:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a reason to expand the rest of the lead to conform with WP:Lead, then the information and explanation is logical and serves up no surprises for our readers. Insomesia (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with the lede containing a very brief WP:NPOV summary of the organisation's beliefs. I disagree with putting a criticism in the lede when the beliefs being criticised are only in the body -- that's confusing to the reader. And I'm still not convinced that the SPLC listing is all that notable. -- 202.124.72.77 (talk) 01:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, you don't need to be. This has gone through the RFC process to the point where it's now clear that the consensus does see the SPLC listing as highly notable. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Include the explanation per Mr. X. Cluetrainwoowoo (talk) 09:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Include with caveat per Anselm. St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 19:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

RfC
An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 14:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Maintenance tag
I see we have an ip editor chiming in, or rather jumping in because as MrX pointed out their removal of the tag was unexplained. However I have explained the removal of this tag, as the information is in the body. One way or another the above RfC is going to have a say in this, but in the meantime I object to the Insomesia's insistence and EW like behavior of keeping the tag because they claim there is no consensus to remove. On the contrary, there is no consensus to include. If they refuse to discuss, I will bring this to the EW noticeboard even though 3RR has not been crossed. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 22:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I reverted the removal of the tag because it was removed by an IP editor with no other edits and no edit summary. – MrX 02:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with your action, but I do with Insomesia's claim of consensus.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 02:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus to remove the clean-up tag. This is why an RfC was started. Insomesia (talk) 22:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Little green rosetta, I will state again, we are making a surprising statement that begs an explanation. Good writing will address this but until the RfC has run its course there remains poor writing in the lead of the article and the clean-up tag is there specifically for that reason. If you feel it's utterly obvious that I'm wrong then the RfC will likely affirm your view. Unitl then I think we need to encourage other eyes on the matter. Insomesia (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * LGR, why are you slowly edit-warring to remove this tag? I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)