This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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:
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)
He did not want his organization to be seen as involved in any way with the Chalcedon Foundation because Chalcedon’s position is theological, based on a conviction that God’s law is the law. He found particularly off-putting our reminder that the Bible describes homosexual behavior as “worthy of death” (Rom. 1:32).
The homosexual rights movement has used this kind of tactic to some degree by promoting the idea that the Nazi German regime persecuted homosexuals. Indeed, some homosexuals were persecuted, and even ended up in concentration camps. Thus opponents of the homosexual rights movement, such as conservative Christians, can be lumped together with Nazis due to their shared opposition to homosexuality. Right? Just as the homosexuals were persecuted by the Nazis in Germany during the 1930s and 1940s, so also they are being attacked by conservative Christians in Canada, the US, and other countries today. The Christians are following in the footsteps of the Nazis. Thus Christians can be made to feel awkward by being identified with a position held by the Nazis.
There is much valid material in this volume to make it worthwhile for distribution to others. Readers will find answers to many arguments that are raised and will be reminded that the Bible clearly testifies against homosexuality and same-sex marriage.
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)
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. St Anselm ( talk) 10:57, 30 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)
I removed a POV tag [3] that was placed for the following stated reason:
If you look at the citation [4], you find that the pumping line is an exact quote from the lead.
In the future, please do adequate research before tagging. I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 17:10, 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
(talk)
central scrutinizer 20:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
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
(talk)
central scrutinizer 21:32, 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. St Anselm ( talk) 21:56, 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
(talk)
central scrutinizer 22:05, 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
(talk)
central scrutinizer 22:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
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'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 20:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
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'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 20:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
1. Diffs or it didn't happen.
2. The SPLC says:
3. See immediately above.
4. Thanks, I've done so. What part do you believe is relevant? I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 21:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
This project is tagged for Wikipedia:WikiProject Calvinism. I have placed note on the talk page there about the discussions and rewrite concerning this article. St Anselm ( talk) 22:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Contrary to this edit, "proselytizes" is a neutral word when applied to religious doctrine. I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 22:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
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". St Anselm ( talk) 13:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm watching. On the whole, the article is shaping up. I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 06:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
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.
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'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
(talk)
central scrutinizer 00:25, 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
(talk)
central scrutinizer 02:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
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
(talk)
central scrutinizer 03:38, 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'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 06:17, 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)
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)
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)
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
(talk)
central scrutinizer 22:51, 21 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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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:
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)
He did not want his organization to be seen as involved in any way with the Chalcedon Foundation because Chalcedon’s position is theological, based on a conviction that God’s law is the law. He found particularly off-putting our reminder that the Bible describes homosexual behavior as “worthy of death” (Rom. 1:32).
The homosexual rights movement has used this kind of tactic to some degree by promoting the idea that the Nazi German regime persecuted homosexuals. Indeed, some homosexuals were persecuted, and even ended up in concentration camps. Thus opponents of the homosexual rights movement, such as conservative Christians, can be lumped together with Nazis due to their shared opposition to homosexuality. Right? Just as the homosexuals were persecuted by the Nazis in Germany during the 1930s and 1940s, so also they are being attacked by conservative Christians in Canada, the US, and other countries today. The Christians are following in the footsteps of the Nazis. Thus Christians can be made to feel awkward by being identified with a position held by the Nazis.
There is much valid material in this volume to make it worthwhile for distribution to others. Readers will find answers to many arguments that are raised and will be reminded that the Bible clearly testifies against homosexuality and same-sex marriage.
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)
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. St Anselm ( talk) 10:57, 30 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)
I removed a POV tag [3] that was placed for the following stated reason:
If you look at the citation [4], you find that the pumping line is an exact quote from the lead.
In the future, please do adequate research before tagging. I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 17:10, 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
(talk)
central scrutinizer 20:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
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
(talk)
central scrutinizer 21:32, 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. St Anselm ( talk) 21:56, 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
(talk)
central scrutinizer 22:05, 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
(talk)
central scrutinizer 22:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
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'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 20:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
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'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 20:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
1. Diffs or it didn't happen.
2. The SPLC says:
3. See immediately above.
4. Thanks, I've done so. What part do you believe is relevant? I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 21:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
This project is tagged for Wikipedia:WikiProject Calvinism. I have placed note on the talk page there about the discussions and rewrite concerning this article. St Anselm ( talk) 22:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Contrary to this edit, "proselytizes" is a neutral word when applied to religious doctrine. I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 22:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
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". St Anselm ( talk) 13:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm watching. On the whole, the article is shaping up. I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 06:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
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.
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'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
(talk)
central scrutinizer 00:25, 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
(talk)
central scrutinizer 02:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
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
(talk)
central scrutinizer 03:38, 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'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 06:17, 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)
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)
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)
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
(talk)
central scrutinizer 22:51, 21 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)