Talk:Christian Coalition of America

message: As the person who wrote previously to me noted, neither can I find any information verifying that the Christian Coalition won tax exempt status. The only important event on the subject that I found was that the coalition was denied its request for this status: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/june99/christian11.htm Could someone verify this information, or correct it?
[Note: This question was posed by an anonymous user at IP address 24.130.254.155 on 9 January 2006.]
Dear Fellow Editors: The article as currently written contains apparent contradictions. Is this organization currently tax exempt or not? That is, is the income of the organization exempt from Federal income taxation under U.S. law? The web site for the organization, as of this posting, includes the following statement:
::Christian Coalition of America is organized and operates as a 501(c)(4) organization, gifts to which are not deductible for Federal income tax purposes. []
If the Christian Coalition is a 501(c)(4) organization, then its income may be generally tax-exempt for Federal income tax purposes, but "contributions" to the organization would not be deductible by the donors -- at least, not as charitable contributions.
I'll try to nail down the facts on whether this organization really is a 501(c)(4) organization later. Famspear 05:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found references and included the info (the loss of its tax-exempt status in 1999 and its consent decree, restoring its 501(c)(4) status in 2005) in a general rewrite. Hope this helps.--HughGRex 18:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tax Exempt Status 

message: I have removed the following (and edited, to make the ref inline):
:Like many Christian right groups, it is against organized labor. One of its political training manuals states:
: :"Christians have a responsibility to submit to the authority of their employers since they are designated as part of God’s plan for the exercise of authority on the earth by man." (ref: [http://www.wisaflcio.org/political_action/rightwing.htm "Politics in America: The Right Wing Attack on the American Labor Movement"; URL accessed April 29, 2006.)
If you want to determine the views of CC, you might use as a primary source the CC itself, or much better, a reliable 3rd party source, such as NY Times, CNN, etc... These sould be easy to find. However, the above is using organized labour itself, as a source of CC's views on organized labour. It states the chracterization as fact, not as the opinion of the organization (revealing the name, only in the footnote). Also, it would be a little more useful to be somewhat more precise. What are the views of CC on organized labour? Let's give exmaples of their views on different labour legislation.
Incidently, this type of sourcing would be as bad, as using the CC as source to say somebody is opposed to organized religion. Generally, organizations make bad secondary sources in articles about their opponents. This is so, even if the claim is true.
NOTE: If you have personally found the CC manual in question (and it is publicly available, e.g. "published"), read it, confirmed the quote, then you may use *that* as a source, because it would be CC characterizing itself. But, if that was done, you would have to better word it. Also, the quote, doesn't actually support the claim of fact. --Rob 01:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was move. -- tariqabjotu 04:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  afl-cio claim removed 

message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Very Weak Support - Christian Coalition of America is by far and away the most popular usage, though I understand the need for a dismabig, and the NZ group looks notable. Should it fail, why not just create a disambig page? Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 04:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: While I agree that this article needs some slight revision, wholesale deletion isn't the way to go about it. Let's focus on specific sections that are inaccurate or clear PoV. --BRPierce (talk) 19:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The article seems to contain long unsourced passages. But the way the anonymous editor goes about it is completely unacceptable. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's definitely room for compromise here, and the article certainly has issues. If we work together, we can fix them...but let's use a scalpel, not a chainsaw. --BRPierce (talk) 13:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone should definitely purse administration action against that crazy anon, "65." something or other. A lot of legitimate stuff keeps getting removed.SayWhatRollerCoasterUhUhUh (talk) 06:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been almost two years since the first round of section mass-blanking but the anonymous editor seems to have a different IP address. This time it now starts with the numbers 98.91. And this time the same anonymous editor also includes sections of text that effusively praise an apparent director of the CC but the statements are completely lacking in citations.TheBalkan (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Deletions 

message: === Orphan paragraph ===
I removed this paragraph (2nd in the Early years section) as it was unsourced and not well written.
I'm parking it here, until it can be rewritten and sourced. – MrX 01:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Unsourced as well as OR.    little green rosetta 02:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: General cleanup

message: I removed this paragraph (2nd in the Early years section) as it was unsourced and not well written.
I'm parking it here, until it can be rewritten and sourced. – MrX 01:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Unsourced as well as OR.    little green rosetta 02:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphan paragraph 

message: I removed the last sentence from the Early years section. It didn't fit in with the rest of the paragraph, and it didn't seem to be sourced. Perhaps someone can re-incorporate  it.
Robertson named Combs as executive vice president in 1999 when Hodel left. – MrX 02:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed sentence

message: I have (for the most part) replaced the name of the organization to CCA throughout the article per WP:MOS. Perhaps it should be Christian Coalition, Christian Coalition of America, Christian Coalition of America, Inc., or 'the Coalition', but it definitely should not bounce back and forth between these variations. – MrX 02:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Organization's name

message: Unless there are objections, I'm going to shorten some of the more recent history, in which it currently reads as if they are in a long, slow financial death spiral. I would think this could be summed up in a few paragraphs. – MrX 02:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Condensing

message: It was removed again. Let's discuss. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I really didn't understand why such a large amount of sourced content was removed, but failing an explanation on this talk page, I'm forced to believe it was to remove anything negative about CCA, no matter how relevant to their history. The edit summary was pretty snarky as well. – MrX 04:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what the anonymous user's problem is but I would assume that after vandalizing this article for years under several very different IP addresses, that they are not going to stop anytime soon.RyanChamberlyn (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inexplicable removal of sourced content 

message: This article has been protected from editing for three days to try to generate talk page discussion of the disputed content. Please follow the WP:BRD guideline. You may also wish to consider dispute resolution (WP:DR). Mark Arsten (talk) 02:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Christian Coalition of America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20010308053913/http://www.washingtontimes.com:80/national/default-200135222537.htm to http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/default-200135222537.htm/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081230224143/http://www.cephas-library.com:80/church_n_state/churchnstate_christian_coalition_shrinks_as_debt_grows.html to http://www.cephas-library.com/church_n_state/churchnstate_christian_coalition_shrinks_as_debt_grows.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified