Talk:WinShape Foundation

Christian lifestyle

"the current contract specifies weekly meeting attendance, leadership discussion group participation, community service, and Christian lifestyle, including abstaining from alcohol and drugs." (my emphasis)

Leaving aside the question of drugs, isn't this very subtle POV? There are literally hundreds of millions of Christians across the world who do not regard a Christian lifestyle as including abstention from alcohol. At the miracle at Cana did Christ turn water into soft drink? (forgot to sign, will now) Avalon 23:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

they never said jesus drank the wine--RIVER 21:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

RIVER, so you're saying that Jesus was just a pusher, not a taker? --Meyvn 13:53, 30 August 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meyvn (talk • contribs)

This article has massive POV issues. Adding POV template until resolved. 68.62.189.3 (talk) 01:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Conservative/Anti-gay/Pro-marriage

Could resolve this conflict? I personally don't like any of these terms. "Conservative" is probably the best of them, the other two both have huge POV problems. Herr Beethoven (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

References clearly state anti-gay.

• Either change the heading to religious/pro-marriage groups, or remove Fellowship of Christian Athletes from the section. Religious does not equal anti-gay.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.147.192.8 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 19 July 2012(UTC)

• An ongoing Chick-fil-A flap -- which has gay rights groups blasting the restaurant chain for donating food to an anti-gay marriage group -- may be a fleeting controversy for a privately held company that is more accustomed to fiercely loyal patrons and generally positive press coverage.
  • Fast-food fallout: Donations to anti-gay marriage group spark Chick-fil-A flap CNN. Chicago Tribune [Chicago, Ill] 07 Feb 2011: 3.
• Focus St. Louis and the Clayton Chamber of Commerce canceled a planned presentation by Dan Cathy, president and COO of Chick-fil-A, after complaints that Cathy and his company are involved with anti-gay organizations. [..] The latter institute was recently designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center because of its anti-gay positions.
  • Local filmmaker to debut 'Joe's Place' Peterson, Deb. St. Louis Post - Dispatch [St. Louis, Mo] 12 Mar 2011: A.15.
• As he sat at a table in a Chick-fil-A restaurant in Des Peres this morning, Dan Cathy, the company's president said he was "disappointed" by the decision of the Clayton Chamber of Commerce and Focus St. Louis to cancel his presentation scheduled for later this week over concerns that his company is affiliated with anti-gay organizations.
  • St. Louis Post-Dispatch Shop Talk column Kumar, Kavita. McClatchy - Tribune Business News [Washington] 16 Mar 2011.
• More than 8,800 people have signed an online petition demanding Reck suspend sales on campus: www.change.org/petitions/tell-indiana-university-south-bend-remove-anti-gay-chick-fil-a-from-campus. [..] It's inappropriate for the university to allow sales on campus by a corporate vendor with national ties to anti-gay organizations, said Rebecca Gibson, a senior from South Bend who also filed a complaint.
  • IUSB Chick-fil-A ban pushed FOSMOE, MARGARET. South Bend Tribune [South Bend, Ind] 28 Apr 2011: A.1.
• A national controversy over whether Chick-fil-A is anti-gay has come to Salt Lake City. On Thursday, a small group of gay-rights advocates picketed the opening of a new store in Sugar House at 1206 E. 2100 South. The protest was planned for the lunch rush, and about eight people gathered at 12:30 p.m., holding signs with slogans such as "Chick-fil-A is anti-gay." [..] But the company, which is owned by a Baptist family that takes pride in guiding the business with religious principles, has refuted claims that it is anti-gay. [..] Q Salt Lake magazine recently reported that WinShape, Chick-fil-A's nonprofit foundation, has donated $3 million since 2003 to "anti-gay groups," such as the Eagle Forum, Focus on the Family and the Marriage & Family Legacy Fund.
  • Sugar House protesters say Chick-fil-A is anti-gay Winters, Rosemary. The Salt Lake Tribune [Salt Lake City, Utah] 12 Nov 2011.
• And the chain has taken a lot of heat for charitable donations (through its foundation, WinShape) to conservative Christian causes, including several that are openly anti-gay.
  • BITE CLUB Irwin, Heather. The Press Democrat [Santa Rosa, Calif] 25 Dec 2011: D.3.

And so on. Changing it to "Conservative", "Pro-marriage", or other weasel words would be NPOV and not supported in the referances 72.196.235.207 (talk) 23:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Here are other referances. I thought the 3 on the page were enough but these can be added if someone thinks this will show why Anti-Gay is the proper language... [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. 72.196.235.207 (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It is evident that you think the present word-choice of "anti-gay" is appropriate, since you have changed it yourself. I am not certain that this is from a neutral point of view, though, since many of the cited stories about the 2009 charitable giving seem to be a repeat of a single (AP?) story and the ones about 2010 seem to be mostly a repeat of the main story that originally appeared 3 days ago in The Black Book and in The Huffington Post.

I do agree with the original poster of this section, that giving more import to either term, "anti-gay" or "Pro-marriage", could be construed as violating the neutral point of view. I am sure that I can find just as many references that state WinShape is one thing or the other. In my opinion the previous version preserved both characterizations without favoring either. Why not leave it to the reader to make up their own minds? Shearonink (talk) 00:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you read all the referances? They do not just repost a AP story, most use their own writing. If you have other referances like you say then please add them. 72.196.235.207 (talk) 00:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The references repeat the term "anti-gay", yet some would characterize WinShape and Focus on the Family etc. as being pro-family. Why not leave both characterizations in the article, why should any one term (either "anti-gay" or "pro-family" or whatever) be favored over any others? In any case, I have adjusted the text to reflect what is in the cited sources and think the community can weigh in on the matter of the section-header. Shearonink (talk) 01:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

72.196.235.207, the references are clearly pro-gay, and as such can't be used to determine NPOV language. I have to agree with Shearonink, that's about the best compromise were going to get to on this, I think. Herr Beethoven (talk) 03:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

If you can find good referances like the dozen I have posted, and can get more, that say pro-family then please list them. And how are the referances "Pro-Gay"? I keep seeing weasel lang which is against Wikipedia standards http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words "Weasel words are small words added to the start of a statement, like "some argue that..." or "critics say...", etc" 72.196.235.207 (talk) 10:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The only non anti-gay statement in the previous version was the Salt Lake Tribune quote of the CEO/businessowner, that quote is part of the entire story and should be retained. The Wikipedia link that would be applicable in this case is words which may introduce bias, where the lede states:

"There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with care, because they may introduce bias. Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, clichéd, or endorse a particular point of view."

For instance, when a Google News search is done for "Focus on the Family" the term "conservative" does show up, the group is not exclusively characterized as anti-gay and both types of terms exist within the Wikipedia article about that organization. The word/phrase in the previous version that could be thought of as 'weasel' seems to be "what some observers characterize as anti-gay", correct? The choice of 'some', as opposed to 'all' would seem to be applicable but I have tweaked the sentence to delete 'some observers'. I have changed the header to a word-choice that I think describes the situation (it is a controversy and the terms used are not completely agreed upon by some/any/all observers). I also think that, since this is an article about an organization, that the Dan Cathy quote should be retained to give a complete picture of the situation. I would like to point out that I added the reference & text about the 2010 giving news. Shearonink (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I reverted your last edit as you have not provided ANY references and even the one you tried to use had nothing to do with your quote. The Dan Cathy quote you posted was not about winshape but about Chickfila giving food to a Anti-Gay group. You can post that on Chickfila's page but it was not part of Winshape. Also a "Google Search" is not a reference per Wikipedia's standard. I also removed your weasel language as again you have not provided any references. I have provided over a dozen, I'm also waiting for you to show me how they are “repeat of a single (AP?) story”. Your edits have not been under good faith as you keep making claims yet backing down when asked for proof. Either come up with some verifiable good references that meet Wikipedia standards and edit in good faith or I will report your disruptive edits. 72.196.235.207 (talk) 22:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

My only aim is to help produce a good encyclopedia, I don't have to justify my edits, but if you think that my edits here are being disruptive please do go ahead and report me now....don't wait. I had thought we were actually having some discussions about a controversial issue, I would suggest that assume good faith is an equal-opportunity policy. I apologize that you have misconstrued my efforts here as being unhelpful, it just seems self-evident to me, from doing a Google News search on these groups or by looking at their Wikipedia articles, that these groups can be characterized as being many things (conservative, pro-family, fundamentalist Christian, evangelical Christian, American, etc.) I am not sure that characterizing them all as being only one thing is necessarily encyclopedic, that is all. Shearonink (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Here are a couple of refs that I've come up with so far: [13] [14]. Herr Beethoven (talk) 01:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The first one supports the already lang that is up. Not sure what that adds. The 2nd one is not about winshape but about when Chickfila gave food to "PFI’s seminar", see that it is dated early 2011. That might work on Chickfilas page. I see you, Herr, reverted my last edit, thanks; I missed the small 2010 line. I did add the referance back and also updated the amount to be more up to date. 72.196.235.207 (talk) 10:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

We may want to consider removing adjectives altogether. Just indicate that WinShape supported the certain organizations followed by the names. The purpose of the groups is wide ranging and does not only deal with LGBT issues, so the term "anti-gay", although used to sell papers and in sections of the paper focusing on gays (e.g, HuffPost Gay Voices), is a term that limits the scope of these organizations. 72Dino (talk) 22:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Huff post is not a LGBT site, that and several other references are Business sites, not "pro-gay" sites. I did not add the Gay sites references as it could be seen as biased but the other references are pretty general sites that focus on many other topics and I think are well qualified per wikipedias reference standards. Something I don't think flows well is adding “Winshape” to each section, this is about Winshape so why keep saying Winshape in each section as its redundant. A couple sections could be tied together “Camps” and the others could remove the “Winshape” name in front of each. For the Anti-Gay section how about “Support for Anti-Gay Group Allegations”. That removes the “Winshape” part in front and I think is more than fair/neutral? The rest of the langauae I am happy with and don't think it needs to be expanded on. 72.196.235.207 (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I think I like 72Dino's idea best. There can't be (much) bias without these adjectives. Herr Beethoven (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The Anti-Gay part is part of MANY referances. This has already been gone over in the Chickfila page. Since the section headline is Wikipedia's adding the word "allegation" to that is kinda ok and was done on the Chickfila page but the lang in the section was left per the referances per Wikipedia's standards. Removing it would be more Bias as you are trying to chnage what the many referances say, let alone trying to add weasel words where they are not present in any of the many referances. 72.196.235.207 (talk) 13:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Removing the term anti-gay is not adding a weasel word, it removes bias one way or the other. By the way, I concur on the overuse of WinShape in section headings and will remove those per WP:HEADINGS. 72Dino (talk) 13:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

72Dino's solution is well-reasoned. While not having as much weight as RS, we should also take into account what how they self-describe themselves.– Lionel ^(talk) 18:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I've tried to adjust the headers, take a look at this set of edits. Shearonink (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Article title

The content of this article has been somewhat controversial, so I wanted to have a discussion on this talk page first about the article title. I want to move the article from 'WinShape' to 'WinShape Foundation'. The legal name of the organization is WinShape Foundation Inc. and adding Foundation to the title gives a better idea of what this organization is. It still meets WP:COMMONNAME. Any objections? 72Dino (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

None here.– Lionel ^(talk) 18:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Besides, WinShape is part of the name of many offspring organizations, putting the word Foundation into the title will cut down on any possible confusion. Shearonink (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Any thoughts on the word choice of the following at Support for anti-gay groups section

1. "WinShape has donated an estimated $5 million to anti-gay groups including Eagle Forum, Focus on the Family, Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Family Research Council, Exodus International and the Marriage & Family Legacy Fund since 2003." or
2. "WinShape has donated an estimated $5 million to socially conservative special interest groups including Eagle Forum, Focus on the Family, Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Family Research Council, Exodus International and the Marriage & Family Legacy Fund since 2003." or
3. "WinShape has donated an estimated $5 million to groups opposed to LGBT civil rights including Eagle Forum, Focus on the Family, Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Family Research Council, Exodus International and the Marriage & Family Legacy Fund since 2003." or
4. ""WinShape has donated an estimated $5 million to groups including Eagle Forum, Focus on the Family, Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Family Research Council, Exodus International and the Marriage & Family Legacy Fund since 2003."

Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I support number 4. It removes bias one way or the other from the sentence, so it is the most neutral. 72Dino (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

go with the description used in the reliable sources.-- The Red Pen of Doom 16:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, go with what the over a dozen referances say. Stop trying to white-wash the anti-gay part.216.81.94.75 (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

No whitewashing attempts that I can see, just what I thought that was some consensus-building and a discussion about choosing words re:neutral point of view. Please assume good faith. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 16:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

No, any attempt at consensus-building has long since passed for you. You have made accusations about the references but not backed them up, continue to edit when you have no support or references for, remove edits that are based on references, etc… so no your edits are anything but in good faith. 216.81.94.75 (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way. Is anti-gay the only/best/most-appropriate/most-neutral term to use to describe these groups in context of their association with WinShape? Perhaps it is...I don't know, that is why I thought it was a good idea to start this section on the talkpage and to gather consensus from the editorial community about the matter. Shearonink (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, you have provided no references for your edits even after you try and call out other references but don’t back it up, have been shown over a dozen that support the current language, and now you are trying to act as though this is a new discussion when right above this is where you tried the same thing. So yes you do know and keep trying weasel tactics like this “Any thoughts on the word choice...” as though it’s a new topic that has not already been hased out. 216.81.94.75 (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, I am sorry you feel that way, whatever you think that was not my intent. I think this discussion is veering off into discussing editors and not the content at hand so I will refrain from any further posts until a consensus is established whatever that might be. Shearonink (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey 216.81.94.75 you should always assume good faith and just because it is in the source does not mean we have to include clear spin Algonquin7 (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Free Berry College from Chick-fil-A Facebook Group

Not sure if this really fits due to no referances, but just a link to the facebook page. Is there any news or other referances we can attach to this? If not then may need to pull till it has better referances. 72.196.235.207 (talk) 20:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Correct, it should not be included in the article (although not necessarily for the reason of it being facebook). Unless the group's decision is covered by reliable third party sources, it should not be in the article, based on WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia should not be doing original reporting based on primary sources WP:PSTS. (An official and verified facebook page is a reliable source for certain limited information WP:SPS - and a group's stance would generally be one of them.) -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Anti-gay

I have reverted the last edits. All the referances state Anti-gay. Chaning to anything else, esp not in the referances, is NPOV. 216.81.94.68 (talk) 11:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

There is more than one way to accurately characterize Eagle Forum, FRC and FotF without assigning the pejorative label "anti-gay", and to insist otherwise is not only untrue, it is also non-collaborative and non-neutral. It is crystal clear to my mind that you - with your 'my way or the highway' attitude - are the one pushing a POV here.

This matter has been decided by group consensus at the Chick-fil-A article, where discussion has produced a solution that is acceptable to just about everybody. You were a part of those discussions - why are you no longer participating there, if it is not because you understand full well that you are in the minority?

Here in this article, these edits of yours have now been reverted by no less than five different editors. How many will it take for you to realize that you are going against a broad consensus? We all know what the sources say, but we do not agree with your interpretation of their editorial findings, nor do we see the necessity of importing them here. Belchfire (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually maybe you should step back and read some of the basic Wikipedia standards like WP:DEM Does not matter is five or 50 editors agree with you if it is not up to many other Wikipedia standards. Funny I see you like to use references for other pages yet when many many dozens of references don’t agree with you on the Chickfila/winshape part they are biased and slanted. Its very simple. There are piles of verifiable and good references to support the Anti-gay language that was originally used when posted. You and others keep trying to change it with not a single good reference that meets Wikipedia standards. The only ones trying to add in their POV is those like yourself that don’t like what all the references show. And no there is no consensus at the chickfila page. You can keep saying that but it does not make it true. 216.81.94.77 (talk) 16:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

There are at least three IPs being used from the Department of Homeland Security that are editing the same articles: 216.81.94.77, 216.81.94.68, and 216.81.81.85. IP 216.81.94.68 is blocked. If the same editor is using these IPs, they should not be editing as they did just above as 216.81.94.77 as that means they are evading a block. If they are different editors, then you may want to create an account to clear up the confusion. 72Dino (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I knew about the block, but I thought it had expired - it hasn't, it was 48 hours. Clearly, this is all the same person. On my way to SPI now. Belchfire (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi; Just a little note, perfectly OK with another editor adding this or not. While I agree that you can't allow an article to say that C-f-A or WinShape IS "anti-gay" or "supports hate groups", particularly in WP's voive, nor can you say that a report that it is being said validates the claim, since that is about as non-NPOV as you can get, it is a little odd to have the online protests included, but not say what epithets they are throwing around are. I know that including the epithets would also require including what C-f-A and WinShape and the "pro-Family" groups actually do and, more importantly, where they do and do not intersect and collaborate, but substantive campaigns usually sound better when the underlying issues and connections are logically and objectively laid out, while Demagoguery usually sounds ridiculous under the same light. Perhaps a more productive course?--209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

On a completely unrelated issue, has anyone else bothered to check for themselves how extensive the "anti-gay" issue factually is for WinShape? Someone attributed their inclusin/exclusion policy at marriage retreats to their IRS 990, [[15]]which seemed unlikely as a reference (no place on the form for such policy matters), so I read through it. While WinShape makes lots of donations to outside groups, the donation to Focus on the Family? Exactly $1000. Even if FoF spends 20% of its budget lobbying against gay marriage, we are still talking about $200 net towards the issue. Even including every single named group that has as a small part of their mission lobbying against gay marriage (or for traditional marriage, if you prefer), we are still only talking about MAYBE $1-2,000 net total, even assuming those funds are not in some way designated as to purpose. WinShape is a $20,000,000 Charity. Obviously, this can't be included in the Article, as is WP:OR, but figure SOMEONE must have commented. (no luck in my search yet)--209.6.69.227 (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I've raised this exact issue on the Talk for the Chick-fil-A article, which says (or said, it occurs to me to go see what's going on there), or at least implies, that CfA donated $8M to Winshape, without bothering to break out how much of that money was actually purposed for anti-SSM uses. For those on the opposite ideological side of this issue, it appears not to matter. What matters to them is that CfA won't cave and support their cause. So much for "tolerance". Naturally, the irony is utterly lost on them. Belchfire-TALK 18:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little embarrassed that I didn't see the amounts given on their 2010 990 earlier (I have a free Guidestar account and looked it up). It's a shame that, out of the $3.8 million in donations the foundation gives, the $1,000 donations to FOTF and Exodus get press but not the same amount to organizations like CARE for AIDS. It would be nice to find some secondary sources on the activities and donations of the WinShape Foundation so we can expand the article. 72Dino (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with using a Primary to balance the article. There's no COI objection to be made, and it isn't like a court filing where claims made in litigation are obviously self-serving. What would be the problem? Belchfire-TALK 19:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The press has definitely picked up on the groups that lobby, and have filed amicus briefs, even though they are a very small proportion. I haven't found a secondary source that refers to the percentage, so that would be WP:OR, but citing the amounts, which are on the 990 and in the original EqualityMatters press release would not be.

Just as an FYI, though. The EqualityMatters press release also characterizes groups that received donations but which do NOT lobby as being "anti-gay", and THAT is where they get the large money figure. The assertion that those orgs. are "like" FotF is pretty non-NPOV. There is a diversity of reasons EqualityMatters labels groups anti-gay, including offering counseling to gay athletes on how to reconcile their Christianity with their inclinations, that are a little less easy to use in a campaign directed to the media. An Encyclopedia needs to be heavier on the specifics, the facts, the who what why, and less on the x said y said. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Interest in official mediation re "gay" terminology?

Is there interest in joining together to attempt to resolve the "gay" terminology issue through a centralized and focused, third party mediated dispute resolution process rather than the issue resurfacing and being re-hashed in every new section? Please leave your interest or lack thereof at Talk:Chick-fil-A#Interest_in_official_mediation.3F)-- The Red Pen of Doom 16:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

As I pointed out on the CfA article Talk page, this should be a last resort. I honestly think things will settle down once a certain issue is resolved by admins. Belchfire (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Again on the "anti-gay" term

So what about 72Dino resolution? The term "anti-gay" has been sneaked in again. So just because press articles claim that an organisation is "anti-gay", Wikipedia takes it for granted? 213.123.178.207 (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It has not been sneaked back in. Sources say anti-gay, which is what the article says. That wording has long-standing consensus. I don't know what you mean by the " 72Dino resolution".- MrX 15:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

So Wikipedia has to parrot's sources definitions, rather than use meaningful words? I don't think that all it takes for activists is to make a number of articles to contain whatever newspeak in order to make it true. "Anti-gay" implies being opposed in some way to people with homosexual tendencies - I would like to see sources of that, rather than "a bunch of sources call them anti-gay".

As for 72Dino's resolution, is the latest discussion on this page chronologically. Immanuel797979 (talk) 11:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, let's look at the articles linked to in that section:

• Focus on the Family portray gay people as an enemy: “Most gays and lesbians do not want to marry each other…the intention here is to destroy marriage altogether.” And they started an "ex-gay" organisation.
• Exodus International was an "ex-gay" organisation, and it sent executives to Uganda to speak out in favour of the state murdering gay people.
• Family Research Council have said "homosexual conduct is harmful to the persons who engage in it and to society at large, and can never be affirmed" and it is "by definition unnatural, and as such is associated with negative physical and psychological health effects".

I'm not sure where the confusion is here. WinShape has donated money to an organisation which publicly stated that they want homosexuals to be murdered.

--holizz (talk) 12:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We are required to follow what the sources say, not change the meaning so that discrimination looks like a good thing. Editors are not allowed to use original research.- MrX 12:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

There are indeed ex-gay people, and there is a significant amount of them not wanting their union to considered on the same level with traditional, procreative marriage. Dolce & Gabbana are among the most notable; I will investigate the claim about Exodus International.

MrX, can you please quote which rule says that we must take what a source is saying at face value. The meaning of words matter. We might report what a source CLAIMS, not just take them for granted. Immanuel797979 (talk) 13:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Exodus International attended a conference, didn't sent people in Uganda "to speak out in favour of the state murdering gays". My point still stands. Immanuel797979 (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The No original research policy requires that we stick to the sources, and not try to alter their meaning. For example when sources use the modifier "anti gay" we are not allowed to change that to "conservative" because they don't mean nearly the same thing. Similarly, when a source says "anti gay groups" we can't change that to "groups criticized by LGBT organisations" because it doesn't mean nearly the same thing. In fact, it's a patently transparent attempt to turn the tables.

I see that you reinserted your original research which is not the correct thing to do. The original wording is supposed to remain unless a new consensus emerges. Please read WP:BRD and WP:EW, if you haven't already.- MrX 13:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not diminishing or altering the event referred by those sources, they should be reported for what they are. But saying that an LGBT charity complained is different from stating that WinShape made "anti-gay donations". "anti-gay" being a term used by a subject external to wikipedia. Are you suggesting that if I find a different source about the same matter that drives a different adjective I could use it instead? Immanuel797979 (talk) 13:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes you are. Again, the sources say anti gay; you wrote conservative. That is your personal interpretation. You can't do that.- MrX 13:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Who can quote a specific source which uses a certain term? Is it possible to use a term in quotes and attribute it to a source? That is the default option which would normally be used in a case like this. Is there any reason why that is not suitable in this case? Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

An earlier investigation by Equality Matters found that Chick-Fil-A, which was recently voted the third most beloved restaurant chain in the United States, donated more than $1 million to anti-gay groups between 2003 and 2008. The IRS forms from 2009 are the most recent available as public records.

Huffington Post, November 1, 2011

The norm across Wikipedia is to simply use the phrase anti gay when sources use that term, without quotes and without attribution. Anti gay is not particularly loaded, and is used by respected organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center. - MrX 22:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

"Respected" organisations is entirely subjective - agenda and political leaning of this specific one is, in my opinion, well-known.

Anyway, I understand that we must include the fact that LGBT lobbying groups complained against Winshape Foundation. They are entirely in their right to do so. They are free to use the specific word "anti-gay", but in this context is very much a weasel word, as it carries the idea that said association opposes homosexual people as persons. Of course there is bigotry against homosexual people and of course this is prevalent across poorly-educated religious people, but to claim that any ethical criticism of homosexuality is an act against gay people is an oversimplification at best.

Once again: why not put those words in context, making it clear that this is not a "de facto" assessment but the evaluation done by, among the others, Equality Matters?

I apologize for coming back so late on the subject, I had some VERY busy work days. Immanuel797979 (talk) 21:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

MrX Immanuel797979 This seems reasonable. "The LGBT rights group Equality Matters has said that the organization promotes 'anti-gay' causes." Thoughts? Does that work? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly. Our sources are not saying that WinShape is anti-gay. They are saying that the groups that they fund are (Eagle Forum, Focus on the Family, Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Family Research Council, Exodus International and the Marriage & Family Legacy Fund.). Anti gay does not (usually) mean "opposes homosexual people as persons." In means opposed to LGBT equality, rights, culture, and so on. Note also that the heading "Conservative Donations" is original research unless sources can be found that describe the donations as such.- MrX 17:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits

Recent edits by Dutral have removed the term anti-gay which is the straightforward way that sources have described the beneficiary organizations. For reasons laid out above, I object to removing this term.- MrX 03:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

You wrote "In means opposed to LGBT equality, rights, culture, and so on". "LGBT equality" is a generic, broad definition. According to this definition, someone might even say that opposing same-sex "marriage" makes someone anti-gay. The term anti-gay literally means "against homosexual people", and none of the groups they fund are this - just because an LGBT group claims that they are "anti-gay" does not make them so - they are, after all, pushing their own narrative. So, why should we keep using them? Wikipedia should strive to be objective, should not be a loudspeaker for someone's agenda. Immanuel797979 (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on WinShape Foundation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990pf_pdf_archive/581/581595471/581595471_201012_990PF.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)