Talk:Traditional Values Coalition

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Content and POV[edit]

Agree or disagree with TVC, keep fair. not just opposing bloggers points. Chuck.lange (talk) 08:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main problem with this article is that it focuses on outlining how far they take their views and who they’ve upset along the way, the actual goals and views on them being more or less the same as those described on Christian right. It might be useful to merge the “Views on homosexuality” points with the passage above it that deals with similar issues. As for the “not persons” quote, my guess is that if accurate at all, it has been taken out of context – it would originally have meant homosexuality does not create a type of person that can be given or denied equality, as with race. Out of the highly supportive material recently added and deleted, it might be worth mentioning that the TVC has a significant minority membership, if it can be confirmed by reliable sources. The West Wing incident is already mentioned on the page Eppur Si Muove (The West Wing), and the James Hormel story on his page, so they could probably be added to this as well. The former incident puts the TVC in a sympathetic light and makes the media appear biased against them, but the latter could be seen as a call for discrimination and is described thus on that page.Billwilson5060 (talk) 08:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the short-term, I would suggest the following changes to this article:
  • change link to “conservative Christian” that is about theology
  • better explanation of policies in the context of the wider Christian right
  • merging of the bulleted section about “views on homosexuality” to reduce over-emphasis on this subject and unsourced material (unsourced in that it is not in third-party sources)
  • mention of other affiliated groups and divisions
  • mention of Hormel and West Wing incidents Billwilson5060 (talk) 20:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I am likely to disagree with the TVC, I'm tagging this NPOV -- the stub as is focuses a lot on what the TVC is against and probably could use some balancing. --—I. Neschek | talk 13:39, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

From what I've seen of it, the whole point of TVC is being against things. -- Kizor 13:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They are a venomous little organization.

  • I edited a few words that seemed POV to me. As much I as I disagree with many of the TVC's views, I feel that Wikipedia articles should maintain neutrality. Andrea Parton 01:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I also disagree with some stuff these guys have done, I don't think they are venomous and I do not believe they are only opposed to things. As outlined in their "Traditional Values Defined" from their webpage, they are for: 1) every human's right to be born 2) fidelity in marriage 3) abstinence before marriage and on and on. True, you can phrase these in a negative way but that's just the obverse. Anyway, I have added a bit about their views on discrimination and tolerance, again from their page. I haven't posted much, so I don't know many of the rules, I'd be grateful if all y'all would help clean it up for me if I make any mistakes. DannyJohansson 15:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to see some footnotes on the bullet points on perspectives on homosexuality. DannyJohansson 15:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the phrase "particularly extremist" at the beginning of the article since most "Christian Right" organizations do not go nearly as far as the TVC on anti-gay sentiment. Comrade_Sephiroth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.221.80.82 (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is hideous and terribly biased. The point is not to analyze the group with a colored lens, it is to describe their make-up, their mission, and their actions (not the reactions to those actions). Please people, get a grip. I wouldn't even start to edit this article, it's just too far gone. User: Denberino - 14:12, 10 July 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denberino (talk • contribs)

Points of view about the group should be reported on. However, the current article could be deemed to give undue weight to critics under that policy.Billwilson5060 (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright[edit]

Please refer to WP:COPYRIGHT before including text from other sources. Recently removed was a large amount of text taken from several sources, including http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/bio_rev_lou_sheldon.pdf Mendaliv (talk) 05:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Christianity?[edit]

Okay, so I noticed the word conservative in the intro, as part of the phrase "conservative Christian churches" points to the article Conservative Christianity. Now, reading through that article, I notice that it's more about traditional Christianity, while the TVC appears to just be conservative in the sense of conservatism. Of course, I'm not an expert on the subject, so I have no idea what the intended meaning is. Anybody have any thoughts? Mendaliv (talk) 07:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with this; the two are related, and TVC at the top appears to be both, but the campaigns are not generally about theology, or affirming that teachings are "literally" or "physically" true. In the absence of information about the 43000 churches, I'd suggest a changeBillwilson5060 (talk) 15:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Deleted referenced information that used this organization's newsletter as a reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.247.64 (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PRIMARY allows for that type of source as far as I'm aware, so long as secondary scources are used to establish notability and NPOV is kept. It is reasonable to assume they oppose "God hates fags" on the basis that they say so unless evidence comes to light to the contrary e.g. an account of a meeting between them. There is, however, a secondary source on the subject here:[1]Billwilson5060 (talk) 16:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newly created/added cat is POV/OR[edit]

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

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

Particular considerations for categorizing articles:

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

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

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

I am repeating this on all pages in which this new cat was added so communities there can discuss. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional values defined is a misleading subject title[edit]

It sounds like that is the definition of "traditional values" instead of these are the values that the Traditional Values coalition subscribe to. I will edit this to a less loaded title, but wanted to get feedback or whatever before I did so.--DCX (talk) 10:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We generally let folks use preferential terms during self-description, so long as they are not definable incorrect. It may help to phrase things in quotes or just outright state the origin of the text ("as outlined in their mission-statement...") so that a reader has a better understanding that they are looking at a self-description. - Schrandit (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Noted your comment and will consider it. I don't think I have seen that rule in action, according to recent some edits...--DCX (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As controversial as the subject is I think you can find some good examples in the articles relating to the abortion debate. Both sides are constantly coming up with their own weighted terminology, framing thing like "Reproductive rights" and "Consistent Life Ethic". We try to use these terms in their pertinent articles while making it clear to the reader that these terms were penned by the activists and are not necessarily neutral. - Schrandit (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Should SPLC "hate group" designation be in the lead?[edit]

There is broad consensus to include the SPLC designation in the lead. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Traditional Values Coalition has been designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group based on "their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities." Should this be included in the WP:Lead as a notable criticism? Insomesia (talk) 02:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These 9 include the SLPC hate label in the lede:

These 6 do not include the SLPC hate label in the lede:

See also: Talk:American Vision § Count of groups

This issue reveals one of those unavoidable inconsistencies with Wikipedia. Because SLPC is an extremely well-known civil rights orgnization (whether you are a supporter or detractor of theirs), I feel that including the hate group label in the lede (and body, of course) is clearly appropriate and warranted. Their data is used by many law enforcement agencies, educational institutions and media. It should be in the lede of all of those articles. --76.189.110.167 (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Include in lead. As notable criticism. Here's another source from the Southern Poverty Law Center; Traditional Values Coalition Jumps on Anti-Shariah Bandwagon that is more explicit, "The Traditional Values Coalition (TVC), long listed as an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center because of its demonizing and false propaganda directed at LGBT people, is casting its net of hate even wider." This can be substituted to blunt the concern of due weight of the source. Additionally we have:
    • Traditional Values Coalition Objects To ‘Hate Group’ Label
    • Mass Resistance declared a hate group
    • Church Lobby Warns of Transgendered Teachers
    • POLITICAL BRIEFING; Gift Comes Back To Haunt Candidate
    • Gay community angry with Rigell endorsement
    • Homophobic groups propose FIVE initiatives to take the gay out of the FAIR Education Act
    • The Changing Political Landscape
    • Proposed Transgender Discrimination Protections Spark Debate
      :These all talk about TVC's hate group status as impacting or informing their work as an organization. The Traditional Values Coalition's label was earned by the group, The SPLC notes:
      • "Traditional Values Coalition has a record of extreme gay-bashing.

        In 1985, Sheldon suggested forcing AIDS victims into “cities of refuge.” In 1992, columnist Jimmy Breslin said that Sheldon told him that “homosexuals are dangerous. They proselytize. They come to the door, and if your son answers and nobody is there to stop it, they grab the son and run off with him. They steal him. They take him away and turn him into a homosexual.” Sheldon later denied that he made the comments, but his website today includes strikingly similar language: “[S]ince homosexuals can’t reproduce, they will simply go after your children for seduction and conversion to homosexuality.” Elsewhere, it claims that “[t]he effort to push adult/child sex … is part of the overall homosexual movement.”

        The TVC also asserts that “it is evident that homosexuals molest children at a far greater rate than do their heterosexual counterparts” — a falsehood based on conflating male-male molestation with homosexuality. Gays, it says, molest children at “epidemic rates,” adding: “As homosexuals continue to make inroads into public schools, more children will be molested and indoctrinated into the world of homosexuality. Many of them will die in that world.” With regard to LGBT teen suicides, TVC, under the headline “Homosexual Urban Legends,” claims that “[t]he cold, hard fact is that teens who are struggling with homosexual feelings are more likely to be sexually molested by a homosexual school counselor or teacher than to commit suicide over their feelings of despair.”

        The TVC also makes assertions on its website about disproportionate homosexual pedophilia and attacks the idea that people are born gay and the claim that gays want the right to marry for the same reasons that heterosexuals do — the TVC suggests the real purpose of marriage equality is to destroy the concept of marriage and ultimately replace it altogether with group sex and polygamy."

        :Traditional Values Coalition is an extremist hate group spreading know falsehoods about entire class of people, fomenting hate and violence all as a supposedly "Christian" organization. That is the tension that should be reported in the Lead per WP:Lead. Insomesia (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that it should definitely be in the lede, but IMO all the SPLC notes are unnecessary. If it deserves to be in the lede, it shouldn't require a hard sell. SPLC's designation of TVC as a hate group is not in dispute. The only issue editors need to decide is if that fact is worthy of of inclusion in the lede. I wanted to make editors aware of all the other WP articles about groups similar to TVC that have the hate group mention in the lede. --76.189.110.167 (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial inclusion. In context, SPLC's reason for inclusion should not be in the lede. That TVC is declared a "hate group" is of sufficient significance to be in the lead, but the reason makes it WP:UNDUE weight. Perhaps if there was another paragraph about what the organization does.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. But of course if it's in the lede it will also be included with more detail in the body. And SPLC will obviously be wikilinked, so readers can go there to find out everything about them. --76.189.110.167 (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It should be pointed out that the designation is not exactly in the body, as well. That leans against inclusion in the lede. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Logically, it just means we must ensure that it's exactly in the body before including it in the lead. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include in lead - This is a key fact about the organization. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include per WP:LEAD & WP:WEIGHT. --Scientiom (talk) 07:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include per scientiom Pass a Method talk 16:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include, but we need to expand the coverage of it in the body if we want to keep it in the lead. The lead section needs to be a summary of the article, after all. Also, the text in the lead needs to be chosen with care - we want to avoid making it sound like a hatchet job, which will be tricky given the nature of the task. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 11:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude as written. There is no reference proposed here. A reference could be found with this wording, but it is a generic statement that does not necessarily apply to the TVC. StAnselm (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What part of it doesn't apply? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include - Notable per WP:LEAD and WP:WEIGHT. It's very well covered as explained by Insomesia above, and further reinforced by 76.189.110.167. – MrX 18:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include in lead. it is a significant bit of information about the group. Carptrash (talk) 18:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include It should definitely be included in the lead and the reference to the designation in the body of the article should be expanded. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

POV Tag Removed[edit]

I've removed the four year old POV tag as this article has changed substantially since May 2008. This tag is meant as a temporary measure to stimulate discussion and editing. It should not be added unless the editor adding it has specific reasons and is willing to discuss them here. – MrX 18:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contested addition of templates: LGBT and discrimination[edit]

The addition of templates {{LGBT}} and {{discrimination}} is contested for this and other related articles. The discussion is occurring here: Talk:American Family Association#Navboxes – MrX 20:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Additions/Continuing Thoughts[edit]

  • consider further discussing members/founders of the TVC - you have them listed, but only name them briefly - could help readers better understand the organization (mainly it's roots and goals) by providing more background
  • in "Traditional Values Defined" it seems a little too subjective/POV
  • also in "Traditional Values Defined": "Without stating what action should be taken, the organization maintainS ... - minor grammatical error
  • consider discussing current issues the TVC is involved in/what their stance is (again to help reader's have a better grasp of what this group actually is/do)

Bbuonocore (talk) 01:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TVC website is offline[edit]

As of September 2017, the TVC's website appears to have gone dark. www.traditionalvalues.org was the organization's web address. Does anyone know anything about this? For example, does TVC have a new web address? Is their website temporarily offline due to technical or business issues? Have they decided to close their website indefinitely? Or is the organization defunct? Andrea Parton (talk) 14:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea: according to SPLC in 2018, they seem to have shut down. I've added this to the lead.--NapoliRoma (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you NapoliRoma. In light of the organization's shutdown or near-shutdown it no longer seems sensible to claim they represent 43,000 churches. I'm planning to overhaul the lead soon. Jno.skinner (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overhaul complete: I moved non-current facts out of the lead and into a new History and organization heading, tried to make the lead a better concise summary of the article, and removed the "lead too short" template dating from 2012. Jno.skinner (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the organization was not closed in 2018 since it filed an IRS form 990 for year 2019. After that, who knows? I put the latest official-website URL address in the info-box and in WP:EL. But it looks like someone hacked the website (long ago?) and the organization does not care enough to even notice. Yes, pretty pathetic. The founding of the organization was 1980 (according to themselves and the SLPC). I updated some other various information as well (headquarters address, president, other). But it looks like this might be the end for this organization. L.Smithfield (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Traditional Values Coalition. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Traditional_Values_Coalition&oldid=1207802140"