Talk:Chalcedon Foundation

Source of Foundation's name

I have modified the start of the History section to reflect accurately the source of the claim the Chalcedon declared the church subject to the state. It is very difficult to prove a negative, but I cannot find such a statement in the records of the council which I have in an abbreviated version. (If it were made I should expect it to have been included.) It is not found either in TH Parker's Bampton Lectures on the Church and State or any other RS source for early church history. Jpacobb (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I have fixed the source for the original text, which is from the Foundation' vision statement:

"Chalcedon derives its name from the great ecclesiastical council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451), which produced the crucial Christological definition of Jesus Christ as God of very God and Man of very man, a formula directly challenging every false claim of divinity by any human institution: state, church, cult, schools, or human assembly."

It can be found here. - MrX 22:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The notion that the Church is merely a "human institution", while held by many Calvinists and Protestants in general, is something the bishops who actually attended Chalcedon (as well as the other Church Fathers) would have considered a heresy. They considered the Church to be nothing less than the Mystical Body of Christ. So the irony is that had Rushdoony lived back in the 5th century, he and his teachings would have been declared anathema by the very council he named his foundation after. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 00:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

And the double irony is: why would an Armenian (who made a very big deal about his heritage) name his foundation after a council that the Church of Armenia famously rejected? Of course, Rushdoony's interpretation of Chalcedon differs greatly from the actual historical significance of that council anyway. Talk about historical revisionism. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 03:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chalcedon 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091203223937/http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp to http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp#s=CA

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 03:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

SPLC

RV unrelated complaints about SPLC; the "controversial" designation isn't really borne out by these problems, and no one seems to believe that it undermines their hate research. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

On a related note (but in the opposite direction), let's not get into "notability bombs" and reprints. One source that was used simply restated verbatim the SPLC content (and linking the SPLC content as the source). That's WP:OVERKILL and unnecessary. If there's another RS with unique content, fine; but don't use sources that just reprint information from a source already used. Butlerblog (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

In addition to the above, we need to be careful to actually state what the source says. For example, the lead stated that CF was designated a hate group for "supporting the death penalty for homosexuality." But that's not exactly what the SPLC source says. It actually says that was Rushdoony's position. The positions of the organization itself are not specifically stated that way in any listed source. Furthermore, there is a section with more detail in the body of the article (as there should be if it's mentioned in the lead); and that section indicates it as Rushdoony's position, not the organization. For those reasons, I edited this sentence in the lead to remove this specific text. Butlerblog (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)