Talk:S. Truett Cathy

What about the his Role on the Clayton county zoning board and the controversy?

Remember Cathy's role on the zoning board, why have we failed to mention that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nd89 (talk • contribs)

If you have a reliable reference on the topic, feel free to add a neutrally worded bit about it. --Delirium 10:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:FOOD Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Restaurants or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. You can find the related request for tagging here -- TinucherianBot (talk) 11:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Philanthropic Activities

Saw Samuel Truett Cathy's philanthropy page on facesofphilanthropy.com, and noticed that his wiki page didn't have a philanthropy section, so I added one. Sir. Somerset (talk) 04:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Anti-gay causes

So are we pretending he isn't a huge donor and supporter of anti-gay causes? How's that work? --50.137.171.62 (talk) 05:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

"Anti-gay groups"? The language is way off from the actual fact that the groups he donated the large majority of that 3 million are not specifically "anti-gay" but have a stance against it without activism. Zosterman (talk) 05:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see how "pro family" is NPOV either. Is there a neutral term that can be used here? 174.29.200.71 (talk) 04:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Remove the adjective and just list the groups. Let the reader decide. 72Dino (talk) 04:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

"Pro-family" is neutral; "Anti-gay" is not. Particularly since Cathy says explicitly that he is not anti-gay. There are other reasons why he might want to support those organizations. Belchfire-TALK 04:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It's already been established that anti-gay is not NPOV so Cathy's opinions on whether or not he is anti-gay are irrelevant. Pro-family implies that viewpoints other than those held by the organization are anti-family, and given the organizations traditionalist leanings also implies that traditionalism is a positive quality for families. Something along the lines of "family traditionalist" would have been a more quantitative alternative. 174.29.200.71 (talk) 22:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

as is pointedly established here "of what Cathy/Winship calls 'traditional families'" - we need to attribute the valuation /description to the person/organization making it. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

We do need to attribute any euphemism ("pro-family") to him. However, there is absolutely no reason for us to avoid more accurate characterizations, such as anti-gay, when our sources support it. For example, FRC is an SPLC-designated anti-gay hate group, so we can use precisely this description of it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Use of the pejorative "anti-gay"

These sources refer to Cathy's contributions as going to "pro-family" organizations.[1][2]. We need to change the article to remove the POV language..– Lionel ^(talk) 03:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

2 Biased sites do not make a way to edit what over dozens of other independent references say. 1 is a copy from someones BLOG the other is from a “Christian Post Reporter”, hardly unbiased let alone meeting Wikipedias standards. 72.196.235.207 (talk) 11:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a WP:BLP, so the wording may need to be different than what you can get away with on an article about an organization. BLP states that "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." Using the term "anti-gay", especially when the subject of the article does not describe the organizations as such, is not conservative or disinterested even though reliable sources use them. I would remove the term from this BLP. 72Dino (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

NBC uses "anti-gay". Business Insider (considered citeable by the NYT according to this unreliable source: Business Insider) uses "anti-gay". I cannot possibly see how it's relevant how the subject of the article describes the organizations. It's only relevant how reliable sources describe the organizations, and "anti-gay" is not rare here.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, Business Insider is iffy, but NBC is clearly a reliable source. It's not our job to let people describe themselves when our reliable sources have a different description. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

If the article imputes an anti-gay position to Cathy that he doesn't actually hold, no amount of sourcing can override BLP. Belchfire-TALK 03:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, that is absolutely incorrect. BLP is not a blanket excuse to remove criticism. "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." We go by what the reliable sources say. The subject of the article is not impartial in describing themselves. We can and probably should say "Cathy describes his position as X (ref)" and also include the most widely held third party descriptors of that position as reported in reliable sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree we should try and go with what what the reliable sources say and not add NPOV issues where they are not. 90moredays (talk) 14:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

From WP:LABEL

Contentious labels

... cult, racist, perverted, sect, fundamentalist, heretic, extremist, denialist, terrorist, freedom fighter, myth, pseudo-, -gate, controversial ...

Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.

If labeling is the only explanation of a controversy, then it does not belong. It is insufficient to repeat an allegation in a label (in this case, "anti-gay") and leave it at that. It is fine to repeat that groups are ALLEGING that groups are anti-gay (and by attribution, you need to not say what press is repeating it, but who in terms of person or org), and it is crucial to say WHY not state that it is true in WPs voice. Further, WP gives some weight to self-identification, for obvious reasons, and none of the groups Cathy donates to self-identify as anti-gay.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 23:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

If NBC is comfortable with anti-gay, so am I. We don't get to censor our reliable sources. 00:47, 14 August 2012 Still-24-45-42-125 (talk)(UTC)

You think NBC, the employer of Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann, is a reliable institution? That's news to me. Quis separabit? 21:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@Rms125a@hotmail.com: Like many others before you, you are conflating WP:RS and WP:BIAS. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

censor is an utterly inappropriate "label", what is needed is PROPER attribution. NBC et al are reporting ON allegations, not investigating and MAKING those allegations themselves. No-one has any problem on saying that, for instance, EqualityMatters (which is described as a "fact checking" group, because that is how they self-identify, not because that is mostly what they are) made the charges that some charitable or political groups could be called "anti-gay". Completely fine, but an encyclopedia must not leave it at that, it must give EqualityMatters' rationale, and for balance, a counter, if there is one(and there is). --209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

"aggresively anti-gay" is used (with no attribution to another group's criteria) by the (conservative-leaning, if you beleive Wikipedia) Telegraph. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I've seen a number of articles about openly anti-gay people or organizations where there is resistance to using this term here despite the fact that reliable sources are completely ok with it. So I'm going to say here what I've said elsewhere: we follow our sources, not our biases. If our sources say it, then so do we. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The term "anti-gay" is political and pejorative in nature. If a left-wing blogsite uses the term to describe Cathy, does that make it true or reliable? I suggest levaing out adjectives and just let his contributions stand for themselves, for better or for ill. If not then a qualifier should be used, i.e. "described as [antigay]" Quis separabit? 21:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

this was done in 2012, your opinion seems to be quite biased and based on your pov, things that should not factor in. the references are clear and the correct term has been used then and now. 96.231.161.128 (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

What was done in 2012? Obviously I am not a Cathy partisan or I would have noticed long ago, so you know nothing about what you allege is my "POV". Nonetheless, the use of derogatory or pejorative terminology, regardless of leftwing or lamestream distortions, is not encyclopaedic when it is disputed. I can dig up sources that will describe the institutions Cathy donated to in quite different terms, so what?? Quis separabit? 21:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that it is implied that the groups are opposed to same-sex marriage ie "[List of groups] which strongly oppose same sex marriage and other initiatives supported by the LGBT community." Those sources are reputable but it seems better to just leave it without the "anti-gay" part or the "pro-family" part as they are both really NPOV descriptions. By adding "anti-gay" at the beginning we really aren't adhering to NPOV guidelines and I'm not saying that because of my political opinion such as the other user seems to be. The descriptions at the end of the sentence are more constructive and encyclopedic in nature than "anti-gay" which is redundant and kind of a pejorative. SantiLak (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a persons personal page but a places of facts based on good references. this seems to have been brought up several years ago and anti-gay is the correct term, and match's the good references. anything else would be a npov violation. 96.231.161.128 (talk) 21:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, SantiLak is correct in this matter. I don't care what was discussed two years ago, especially since nothing was agreed or mandated. I am reopening the debate in light of Cathy's death. I am not going to violate 3RR but this issue is not resolved. Quis separabit? 21:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

As said above "@Rms125a@hotmail.com: Like many others before you, you are conflating WP:RS and WP:BIAS. EvergreenFir" Again this is a old issue and seems to reflect your pov, not what the references say. 96.231.161.128 (talk) 23:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I do think WinShape has donated, since 2003, over $5 million to anti-gay groups including the Marriage & Family Foundation, Exodus International and the Family Research Council which strongly oppose same sex marriage and other initiatives supported by the LGBT community would be a more accurate phrasing. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

i agree and that is what the references say and what seems to have been hashed out when this came up in 2012. seems like a old issue that was settled years ago and again supported by numerous references. 96.231.161.128 (talk) 01:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Disagree. The implication is that the reason for donations was because of their view on LGBT issues, especially when writtin in WP voice as it is. Per WP:LABEL no label at all should be used. I presented the most neutral version possible. Since 2003, WinShape donated more than $5 million to groups including the Marriage & Family Foundation, Exodus International and the Family Research Council. These donations have received criticism because these organizations oppose same-sex marriage and other initiatives supported by the LGBT community. This is all factual and does not present any POV at all. Arzel (talk) 13:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

No the version you are trying to apply would be in WP voice as it does not match the citations and changes what several good citations say. You seem to be trying to add your own NPOV voice through Wikipedia. This debate went on from 2012 and the current language is what was agreed to due to several reasons given above by many other editors. Trying to go against the consensus would be faulty. Resaltador (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

How is it applying WP voice when it makes no explicit POV label? That some sources apply the label is POV, that you choose to use only sources which apply the label shows you imparting your POV. My version is purely factual, that you see POV in it says more about your own POV. Arzel (talk) 04:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Invalid link

The text based on this dead link was correctly removed. It is highly suspect and should not be restored without a valid reflink. Quis separabit? 23:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC: "anti-gay", again

This old edit war has flared up again, it seems. Time to settle the matter--claims to the contrary notwithstanding, the issue was not resolved in 2012. The question is simple: should "anti-gay" be included as a modifier for the organizations to which Cathy donated money? Drmies (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• Leave it in It's supported by at least one reliable source (Business Insider http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how-much-money-chick-fil-a-gives-to-anti-gay-groups-2012-7) There are two other references tied to huffington post, which , as I understand it, has limited reliability, and one to Salt Lake City Tribune, and it doesn't state Chick-Fil-A is anti-gay, it states the student's position (that are protesting Chik-Fil-A). Leave it in. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• "it states the student's position (that are protesting Chik-Fil-A)." -- that is nonsense. The article could say "students protesting the chain claim it is 'anti-gay'". The article as written doesn't say that -- it avers as a matter of fact that Truett and his company are anti-gay. Reading 101. And if you think a bunch of indocrinated intolerant reactionary students are reliable, then let's include, in the respective articles, the personal opinions of the Iranian students who, in 1979, attacked the American embassy in Tehran and humiliated the United States in front of the whole world, and put those opinions in as facts. You think the comparison is ludicrous, no doubt. It's not. Mob mentality intolerance is mob mentality intolerance. Quis separabit? 18:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• The question is not whether these organizations can be reliably described as anti-gay (personally I don't doubt that at all) but whether that should be mentioned in here, esp. given that their stance on LGBT marriage is already noted. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• No He donated specifically on religious grounds to groups connected with his religion - we already mention Winshape donations to groups, etc. so we need not use a sledgehammer here at all, any more than we should have "anti-gay" in the Billy Graham BLP or "anti-gay" on articles about Hasidim. Collect (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• NO: the term "anti-gay" should be removed. It has not been proven. The Cathys have never been accused of discrimination against any employees or customers, nor after all this time has a single hateful comment been attributed to any member of the family or anyone at Chick-fil-A. If I oppose taxpayer financing of Planned Parenthood, say, that doesn't make me anti-contraception. And a moral opposition to same-sex marriage (a la Brendan Eich, driven from his career and his job) does not make someone "anti-gay". (Personally, I don't have a problem with same-sex marriage, but I try to give people who do the benefit of the doubt.) This scorched earth terminology ("anti-gay"), usually from left-leaning media sources(like most of the mainstream media, especially the snarky hyperliberal Huffington Post) or even a magazine like Business Insider whose editors' discretionary use of adjectives do not create facts in and of themselves. Let's not even talk about trying to avoid friction with powerful lobbies, something that Wikipedia should not have to concern itself with. No doubt the Cathy family inspires opprobrium or even odium from certain segments of society, but that is neither here nor there. Quis separabit? 18:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• NO Per Drmies statement and Collect's statement and also because it implies a reason for the donations. Arzel (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• Keep or compromise - The question is whether or not the inclusion implies that the reasons behind the donations were anti-gay sentiment. These donations were made through the WinShape Foundation. The wiki article for that group says, Employment by Chick-fil-A is no longer a requirement, but the Christian-based nature of WinShape is perhaps stronger today than ever; the current contract specifies weekly meeting attendance, leadership discussion group participation, community service, and a fundamentalist Christian lifestyle, including abstaining from alcohol and drugs. (emphasis added). The mission of the charitable arm of Chik-fil-A is fundamentalist Christian. Fundamentalist Christianity is anti-gay. The compromise I suggest is to replace "anti-gay" with "fundamentalist Christian" as it will convey what the groups really are and inform readers of their political agendas (beyond just LGBTQ rights). That said, it's hard to escape the fact that these groups are anti-gay. One tried to "cure" homosexuality and the other is labeled a hate-group by the SPLC. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I am open to compromise, but I do not believe "fundamentalist" is accurate or fair. How about "evangelical Christian"? Quis separabit? 19:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

FRC is called "conservative christian" on their wiki article... how about that? I don't know if they're evangelical to be honest. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, then what about "conservative Christian"? I am not a Christian and I don't know or can even guess if he was evangelical or fundamentalist, or even regarded or called himself as such. Without evidence that he self-regarded himself in those terms, that's a personal determination neither of us can make. Yours, Quis separabit? 19:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Isn't that essentially a synthesis rationale? NE Ent

 Works for me EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Do we know anything about his motivations for donating at all? I mean, we can guess, and we can make an educated guess, sure. But as long as we don't know for sure (by means of reliable sources, and in language that reflects that it's sources that say that), we shouldn't discuss motives. By the same token, I disagree with Collect and RMS: I do not believe that a modifier for the groups (whichever one it is) necessarily implies some sort of BLP creep. For me this is an editorial decision on whether a modifier is necessary in the first place. We could even be facetious and say, well, maybe the money was donated so the groups could buy a nicer building since Cathy hated the looks of the old one--which could be ground to remove the whole "which strongly oppose etc." phrase.

  But more to the point, now that I look at the sentence and the preceding paragraph again, I think that much of this is all wrong to begin with. That foundation has its own article, and that article should speak for itself--after all, that he started and funded a foundation doesn't mean he ran the day-to-day operations and orchestrated or approved every decision the foundation made. This article should make clear not necessarily what the foundation does, but rather what Cathy's involvement with it was. So for me the problem with this article is that it says too much about the foundation and not enough about what his job/position/involvement etc. was. For now I'll adopt the NO position, to not include this phrasing (just to get that out of the way), but I would go further and cut the entire "In 2008..." paragraph as just not that relevant to this biography. Drmies (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - The term "Anti-gay'" is a pejorative and should not be used. It shines a negative light on the subject who is donating and far from being neutral. One reliable source notes "anti-gay" donation. We will need multiple reliable sources to make such a claim and "anti-gay" should definitely be placed in quotes if we are to include it. Meatsgains (talk) 20:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Concur, obviously. Quis separabit? 21:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

They are openly anti-gay so I don't see how it's pejorative... but anyhow "conservative Christian" works. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

OK - we may have a consensus to change "anti-gay" to "conservative Christian". Anyone have any opinions?? Quis separabit? 02:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd be more specific. The organizations are "conservative" in a particular way that seems significant for the subject's purposes. I think "socially conservative Christian" is more accurate. Or "socially conservative evangelical Christian." Cloonmore (talk) 11:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support WP:STATUSQUO wording that accurately describe the groups that Winshape disburses funds to as anti-gay per the sources. This was discussed at length in 2012 on various Chick-fil-A related article talk pages and no one came up with a policy-based reason to euphemize what our sources plainly state. The organizations may be conservative, and they may be Christian, but those are not substitute words for anti-gay.- MrX 12:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Except that we don't need a substitute for a POV term like "anti-gay"; we need an accurate NPOV term. "Socially conservative Christian" captures it. Cloonmore (talk) 12:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

"Socially conservative Christian" is not neutral. It implies that that these groups occupy the moral high-ground. I would, however, not be opposed to "socially conservative groups that oppose equality for LGBT people".- MrX 13:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

How does the term "Christian" imply moral high ground, rather than accurately describing these groups' undisputed religious affiliation? I've proposed "evangelical Christian" if you want more specificity. And, obviously, "oppose equality" is as loaded and pejorative as "anti-gay." Cloonmore (talk) 14:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I would think the connection would be obvious. These organization's rely almost entirely on the notion that their Christian morality should influence society and culture. Calling these organizations Christian implies that LGBT people are not Christian or are not moral. It's easy to see that these organization specifically oppose all that is LGBT, as opposed to promoting actual Christian values of love, charity, forgiveness, love, renunciation of worldly goods, and fidelity in marriage. - MrX 14:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Simple solution. Leave the value laden labels out completly. Then you don't have to worry about them claiming the moral high ground. Arzel (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Why are experienced editors forcing the new edit in before the RfC is even concluded? Doing so is contrary to common practice as documented by WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD, policies which I'm certain these editors have themselves have cited in arguments on other article talk pages.- MrX 12:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Mainly because using "anti-gay" is a "contentious claim" under WP:BLP and, as such, must be removed. I sincerely doubt that the current RfC will override WP:BLP at this point, so edit warring to re-insert the "anti-gay" bit is unlikely to meet the requirements of collegial editing. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

No it's not, but you're welcome to raise your concern at WP:BLP/N if you think that organizations that specifically oppose equal rights for LGBT people can't be described as anti-gay.- MrX 13:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@MrX: Your determination to hold out till the end and infect the Truett article with biased and misleading incendiary adjectives displays very bad faith. Opposing same-sex marriage is not "anti-gay" any more than opposing a multitude of modern sexual mores, once unthinkable, is denying sexual libertines' their equal rights or that opposing polygamy is denying fundamentalist Mormons their "equal rights" or any more than those who oppose Tom Ammiano's locker-room legislation in California wish to hurt sexually confused tweens, or any more than pacifists who oppose all warfare wish to actively hurt, in the absence of hostilities designed to recue or save them, those who are in existential danger in other parts of the globe and need protection by forces more powerful than those which threaten them. In other words, the root or genesis of the view(s) which so many seek to demonize is what should be judged when compiling an encyclopaedia, although not necessarily when preparing military action or social policy, when the consequences of inaction outweigh those of not doing so. Are the views so detested on one side of the issue based on malice or malevolence, or is it something which has been ethically ingrained by society, academia, cultural mores, etc? In fact the use of the term "anti-gay" rather than "anti-LGBT" or "anti-GBLT" is clearly political as one is far stronger and more likely to arouse attention than the others. I could play tit for tat and remove your last edit by citing BOLD or IAR but I am not going to do so. I can wait for this RfC to end. It's been a long time coming due to activist editors' squelching debate previously, so having waited this long, we can certainly wait a little longer, especially as a compromise: "conservative Christian" or "Socially conservative Christian" -- appears to be generally accepted. Quis separabit? 14:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

'Infect', 'biased', 'misleading', 'activist editors' and 'bad faith' don't really set a tone for a positive discussion, IMHO. I'm willing to compromise on how we describe the groups that Winshape has donate to, as long as we stay close to the sources. I'm against using "Christian" as a descriptor, as I've already explained.- MrX 15:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Truett regarded himself as a conservative Christian. Quis separabit? 15:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: the sources given ascribe the "anti-gay" opinion to "EqualityMatters.org" a self-described "communications war room for gay equality" which is not a reliable source for a contentious claim to be made in Wikipedia's voice. Collect (talk) 12:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

SYNTH or just association fallacy?- MrX 14:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The sources given mention the organization specifically. Thus "SYNTH" is totally off-the-wall as an accusation -- it is from the sources provided. The description is from the organization itself, and thus is not SYNTH, which is irrelevant as an argument in a talk page discussion in any event. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Biased sources, no less. Quis separabit? 14:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• No. It is clearly a pejorative term and introduces a biased point of view. The qualification is unnecessary and has the potential to be misleading. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Here is a sampling of what reliable sources say when referring to the groups supported by Chick-fil-A via Winshape:

• "Chick-fil-A will no longer donate money to anti- gay groups or discuss hot-button political issues after an executive's comments this summer landed the fast-food chain in the middle of debate over same-sex marriage." - Washington Post

• "Cathy's comments and revelations that the chain has donated millions of dollars to anti-gay -marriage groups have sparked a furor from several big-city mayors, Muppets maker Jim Henson Co. and thousands of consumers who have pledged to boycott the chain." - Seattle Times

• "In February, Northeastern University balked at Chick-fil-A ’s plans for an on-campus eatery after students squawked about reports the chain’s charitable arm donated millions of dollars to anti-gay groups." - Boston Herald

• "The Burlington Mall food court erupted in applause after about a dozen gay rights advocates descended on Chick-fil-A last night to lock lips for a national “Same-Sex Kiss Day,” a kiss-in to protest the millions of dollars they say the company has donated to anti-gay groups." - Boston Herald

• "The Atlanta chain has contributed to causes widely viewed as anti-gay, and its president two months ago caused a firestorm by saying Chick-fil-A was "guilty as charged" of supporting the biblical definition of the family unit." - USA Today

• "There are few more treacherous actions a CEO can take than to make derogatory comments about gay men and lesbians or to be publicly exposed for funding anti-gay causes." - USA Today

• "The Southern Poverty Law Center labeled the FRC as a hate group in 2010 for what it called the group's anti-gay stance." - The Star Ledger

• "Meanwhile, Chick-fil-A has reportedly donated millions to anti-gay Christian groups, and continues to stress its religious views. " - Seattle Post-Intelligencer

• "The Georgia-based chicken chain is currently best known for donating millions of dollars to anti-gay groups." - Seattle Post-Intelligencer

• "Chick-fil-A finds politics can be bad for its business - Donations to anti-gay groups, exec’s interview have some less willing to forgive chain’s 'Bible-based’ values" - Advertising Age

• " Earlier, Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy’s donations to Christian anti-gay groups spawned the hashtag #ChikFilGay, as well as videos, memes, and public demonstrations and calls for a boycott." - Crain's Chicago Business

• "Chick-fil-A has pledged to stop giving money to anti-gay groups and to back off political and social debates after an executive's comments this summer landed the fast-food chain smack in the middle of the gay marriage debate. " - Houston Chronicle

• "Since then, Cathy has been developed a friendship with Campus Pride director Shane Windmeyer who says Chick-fil-A is no longer making donations to some anti-gay rights groups." - CNN

There are hundreds of more sources that nonchalantly describe these groups as anti-gay. - MrX 16:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

-------------

• a) Campus Pride director Shane Windmeyer -- biased source, which you should know, @MrX
• b) Once one media outlet uses a term, other media and Internet sites cannibalize it -- which I know you know, @MrX
• c) "nonchalantly" -- that's absolutely right, @MrX, not cautiously or painstakingly or even accurately

IN SUM: it should not matter if overwhelmingly left-leaning, ignorant or intellectually lazy reporters and/or editors choose to use "antigay" rather than going to the trouble of writing "organizations which oppose same-sex marriage and other issues of importance to the LGBT community". It's far easier to just say "antigay". Adjectives do not are not supposed to create facts, especially ones "nonchalantly" used. A man's life, name and posterity should not be besmirched forever because of an adjective "nonchalantly" thrown around in the mainstream media. Marie Antoinette never said "Let them eat cake" and Gerald Ford never said "New York City can go to hell" but once accepted into the lexicon, there they remain. Quis separabit? 18:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Whoa RMS, take it easy. "Overwhelmingly left-leaning, ignorant or intellectually lazy reporters", there is no call for that and no justification, Marie Antoinette notwithstanding. But I'm still waiting for someone to explain what all this content is doing in this article. MrX, is Cathy mentioned in those articles? Mentioned as instrumental? Drmies (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

That's an idea worth considering. If we trimmed down Philanthropy and political contributions section to 2-3 sentences, and removed the laudatory cruft, then I would be fine with a simple link to the WinShape article. After all, it was Dan Cathy who made the controversial public statements in 2012.- MrX 19:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

No per Drmies. NE Ent 12:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment. If sources call these organizations "anti-gay" I see no reason not to reflect what the sources say. The sources are saying that for a reason. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support. If reliable sources are routinely characterizing a group as anti-gay, then it's alright to quote their description. Wikipedia can't label them as anti-gay in its own voice, but we can report an overwhelming tendency to do so. That satisfies both due weight and verifiability concerns. Whether it's pejorative is another matter entirely, and I'm inclined to find it more "calling a spade a spade" than I am to see it as pejorative. If it were one source or a couple fringe sources, then I'd say it's undue at the very least, but MrX posted a rather lengthy list that consists of nationally known and well-respected sources. If "anti-gay" is found to be unacceptable, it could probably be softened to some kind of politically acceptable euphemism like "opposed to gay marriage". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support. I agree MrX has provided more than enough reliable and independent sources that all use similar language that supports the written piece in the article. Anti-Gay is used over and over again, it is not for us to re-write it in Wiki Language or in a way that violates WP:NPOV. It should remain as supported by the many sources. Resaltador (talk) 11:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Removed, for now

I've removed the contentious material pending resolution of the Rfc. The rfc is currently trending heavily towards no, and WP:STATUSQUO is not policy or guideline, and the material is "BLPish" -- it's not "poorly sourced contentious material," but it is "contentious material of suspect relevance," so out of respect for a recently deceased individual it should remain out unless / until there is a consensus to put it back in. NE Ent 12:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, just to clarify, I did not request that this text be removed, only the pejorative adjective(s). I trust that @NE Ent is acting in good faith and that all will work itself out in a fair and unbiased manner. Quis separabit? 13:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

NE Ent, all you have done is remove the unpleasant portions of the content, and left the glowing praise. That's a huge WP:NPOV no no.- MrX 13:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a clear misunderstanding of NPOV here. The article is supposed to be neutral, but if the subject of the article is biased, the inclusion of his positions cannot be considered "pejorative". Cathy has illustrated and represented himself over and over as anti-gay and to remove this text seems biased in and of itself. It should stay in until his behavior and his persona change dramatically. The whole "pejorative" argument above is akin to saying we should remove references to Hitler being "anti-Jew" because it would be considered "pejorative". Those who want to water down an article's facts because they might be offensive to others are contrary to the overall effort here on WP. The removal of the content "pending the outcome of the RFC" is itself biased, preemptive in nature and unwarranted. While the cries of AGF will trumpet loudly, I find the actions of anyone, including @NE Ent, deciding what should or shouldn't be done in advance of consensus to be overreaching. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 16:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Please provide links from reliable sources supporting the contention Cathy is anti-gay. NE Ent 16:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

MrX has provided quite a few reliable and independent sources that match the language used in the article above. Resaltador (talk) 11:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Show me the sources which state that the organizations are "anti-gay" as a matter of undisputed fact. AFAICT, we can ascribe that opinion to the sources expressing that opinion at most, and making statements of fact in Wikipedia's voice where the source is an opinion is against policy. I would further suggest that we know Cathy was a southern Baptist, and to the extent that his opiions on religion are consistent with his religion, they are not especially notable otherwise. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)