Talk:Traditional Values Coalition

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Content and POV

message: 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)
thread_title:  Copyright 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Conservative Christianity? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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:Billwilson5060 (talk) 16:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: 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  template if you find an article in a category that is not shown by sources to be appropriate, or the  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)
thread_title:  Newly created/added cat is POV/OR 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Traditional values defined is a misleading subject title 

message: 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)
thread_title:  POV Tag Removed 

message: The addition of templates  and  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)
thread_title:  Contested addition of templates: LGBT and discrimination 

message: * 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)
thread_title: Possible Additions/Continuing Thoughts

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  TVC website is offline 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080617221016/http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=8992 to http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=8992
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130416073717/http://www.traditionalvalues.org/content/defined/ to http://www.traditionalvalues.org/content/defined/
*Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20050903205338/http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=1221 to http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=1221
*Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20050904034350/http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2066 to http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2066
*Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20060214123729/http%3A//www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid%3D138 to http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=138
*Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20050903114630/http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=1643 to http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=1643
*Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20090205004105/http%3A//www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid%3D271 to http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=271
*Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20050904064434/http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=181 to http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=181
*Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20090205050628/http://www.traditionalvalues.org/print.php?sid=3083 to http://www.traditionalvalues.org/print.php?sid=3083
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080421122921/http://www.rightwingwatch.org/groups/christian_senio/index.html to http://www.rightwingwatch.org/groups/christian_senio/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified