Misplaced Pages

That is fine just remember in order to settle a dispute the guidelines are: "How can neutrality be achieved?

Talking with other contributors is a great way to find out why there is a dispute over an article's neutrality. Ideas and POV's can be shared and ultimately the disputed fact or point can be fixed if it is incorrect or, when dealing with a controversial issue, various legitimate sources can be cited in the article.'

Each of my citations are crucial to maintain fairness in representation the truth of the viewpoints of Focus on the Family, although I strongly disagree with them; I want it to be clear what their conference stands for. I did that by quoting them from their direct resource's so that there could not be a dispute of their opinions. To be honest I wasn't sure how to make citations so I would love it if you were to edit it appropriately for me. I am more concerned at keeping it factual and poignant.

Again thank you for reviewing it before deleting it. I look forward to working with you to settle the dispute. ~nycutiepi~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.18.12 (talk) 00:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

On Jan 13 2008, I have added the section Controversy and Criticism of the Love Won Out Conference to add balance towards all the Pro-Ex Gay movement theology expressed in the Love Won Out section. It now reads to first show the stance and affiliations of Focus on The Family and then continues to site sources on those who offer opposing ideology's and criticisms of Focus on the Family and the Religious Right movement on the "sin" of homosexuality.

Love Won Out Moved

I ~nycutiepi~ the original creator of Love Won Out section of this article have moved the majority of the Article after many edits to a more formal page Love Won Out, leaving only a summary of basic points still backed up with references directly out of the Love Won Out Conference Guide copyright 2005-2006. For more details on this conference please now refer to the Love Won Out Article. Nycutiepi (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have an active url for the conference guide which is frequently cited?Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I have not found an active URL for the conference guide, and the pages that the wayback machine presents are hopelessly generic. So I have simplified the reference. It is no longer a link to an irrelevant web page, but just a reference to the conference guide. Hopefully, someone who has the 2006 Conference Guide will be able to check the facts. --Kevinkor2 (talk) 02:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Homophobic category

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.

Joshuajohanson removed this category with the edit summary "Many gays find this organization helpful. It is POV to say it is homophobic." I would like for someone to find 10 gays or lesbians (ones that don't hate themselves by following Love Won Out's dogma) that actually agree with this statement. The reasons I exclude the gays and lesbians that have been sucked into LWO is because by LWO's own reasoning...these people are no longer gay or lesbian...they're "straight." So I guess they don't count. It is extremely POV to say "many gays" find FOTF to be helpful. As someone who is an active reader of LGBT media, I don't recall reading anyone saying FOTF is helpful. The exact opposite is said...that they're homophobic. That's why the category should remain. That is your own view that FOTF is not homophobic, but the vast majority of people that it actually deals with would surely differ from your opinion. LegitimateAndEvenCompelling asked me to use the talk page and so I have. I'll wait for a response today, but I'm going to add it back unless someone has a compelling reason it shouldn't be included. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Using the "homophobia" category for specific people or organisations is problematic because "homophobic" is a pejorative label (and therefore POV) rather than a simple factual assertion. It's comparable to adding "Category:Perversion" to an article on some particular sexual behaviour. Categories aren't particularly good for this sort of thing; rather, we should (and do) discuss this issue in the article text. — Matt Crypto 15:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

What about reliable sources that agree with the homophobic description? Also, "Many gays find this organization helpful" is probably not the best edit summary to use if one wants to avoid POV edit disputes. The reason I feel so strongly about this is because, as my user name suggests, I am a fundamentalist Baptist preacher's kid and have dealt with the Exodus International crowd and know what it's like to have your family and childhood friends shun you for being gay...telling your nieces and nephew that their uncle is a child molestor since he's gay. It's sickening. Ok, I vented. (steps off soapbox) AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sad to hear about your experiences. My view here is simply that it is better to deal with a person or organisation's views on this topic -- and the criticism that it attracts -- in the text itself. That way, you can cite sources and word it appropriately etc. Just my two pennies... — Matt Crypto 15:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Added above cat info. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You know what, I'm sorry you had a bad experience with your fundamentalist Baptist background. That is wrong and I think that is an example of homophobia. Regardless of your personal opinions, that has not been my experience. There is homophobia in the Christian Church, and most Christians turn a blind eye to it. There are many people in the Christian Church who I do not feel safe around, who judge me based on my feelings. The Love Won Out conference at least addresses the issue openly, and gives conservative Christians with an affinity towards their own gender a framework in which they can live their religion as they understand it. Now I do not agree with everything Love Won Out teaches, but at least they are trying to understand us and reach out to us, as opposed to many other Christians. I like the way one journalist recorded it "I came away from the Love Won Out conference with a renewed sense of Christ's love for the gay community. I was encouraged to reach out with more love and less judgment, more tolerance and understanding, and less fear."

However, your assertion that my opinion, and the opinion of many of my colleagues "doesn't count", because we have been "sucked into LWO" is just as close-minded and bigoted as your family's reaction to your sexuality. Who are you to judge us? You cannot discount a whole group of people because they disagree with you. I mean, seriously, talk about close-minded. The prejudice against us is so blatant that our very existence is considered a POV dispute. Furthermore, my opinion isn't based on being "sucked into LWO", but through my relationship with Jesus Christ. He lives and he loves me. His word is supreme and I will follow him all the days of my life. I really don't care what you have to say about that because that is what I believe, and I am entitled to my belief just as you are to yours. Billions of people hold the same belief, and I guarantee it isn't because of some Love Won Out conference. Do you have any other reasoning besides your own bigotry for excluding our opinions?

Anyway, you asked for 10 gays who agree with me and don't hate themselves. I'm one, and I don't hate myself. But that isn't what you meant, now was it? You meant to say anyone who isn't trying to diminish same sex desires, implying that anyone whose expression of their sexuality doesn't meet your narrow approval must hate themselves. I take offense to that. But you know what, I'll give you three people who express their sexuality through homosexual sex, though I must admit I am not aware of whether or not they hate themselves.

• Simon LeVay said "I believe that we should as far as possible, respect people's personal autonomy, even if that includes what I would call misguided desires such as the desire to change one's sexual orientation."
• Camille Paglia said "Is the gay identity so fragile that it cannot bear the thought that some people may not wish to be gay? Sexuality is highly fluid, and reversals are theoretically possible. ... helping gays to learn to function heterosexually, if they wish, is a perfectly worthy aim."
• Douglas Haldeman said "we must respect the choices of all who seek to live life in accordance with their own identities; and if there are those who seek to resolve the conflict between sexual orientation and spirituality with conversion therapy, they must not be discouraged." Joshuajohanson (talk) 13:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Copy and paste this discussion onto my talk page if you want to further this debate. The talk page isn't the appropriate place. WP:TOPIC Trust me, I have an opinion on this...but I won't discuss it any further here. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I was quite surprised that nothing about their strong homophobia is mentioned in the article. Infact the article seems to take great steps to avoid talking about it. Several times in the article it is claimed that they are "pro-family", but empirically they are less pro-family than just about all other organizations, because of their stance against homosexual families. 97.91.168.44 (talk) 01:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, conservative groups like this are experts at using misleading language to describe their position. "Pro-family" really means "pro - a particular narrow set of families that we approve of". HiLo48 (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

While you're certainly welcome to believe whatever you want about this or any other group, you cannot add that belief to the article without reliable sources. Seregain (talk) 05:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages in general is avoiding labeling persons and groups as "homophobic." In fact, the "homophobia" category was recently purged of all articles about people and organizations. See the discussion there for more information. Seregain (talk) 05:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I strongly concur with Seregain. Boromir123 (talk) 05:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a category called "anti-Judaism" and there is a category called "racism" in both categories there are living individuals listed. By not acknowledging homophobic or anti-gay discrimination you are saying it doesn't exist. About the term "homophobic" being pejoritive - is the term anti-Semitic equally pejorative?--DCX (talk) 11:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Doug: "anti-Semitic" means that a person is against the Jews. However, "homophobic" etymologically means in these context someone who has "the fear of homosexuals". You can be afraid of Jews and not be against them. Focus on the Family isn't afraid of homosexuals, they just see them as their Bible tells them to: lost sinners on their way to eternal damnation in a place called hell who are desperately in need a of someone to save them (Jesus Christ) even if they don't know that they need to be saved. According to what Jesus commanded to do the people at Focus on the Family probably have a sincere love and care for homosexuals, but not a fear of them. The Bible in fact tells them not to be afraid so if they're true to their book then none of the people at Focus on the Family can correctly be called homophobes. Invmog (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Invmog - I think you're playing with words there. The common meaning of homophobia where I come from (and, I think, in much of the English speaking world) is much closer to disapproval and/or dislike of what homosexual people do than a fear of homosexuals. Many words we use regularly have different meanings from their original etymologies. If we based this encyclopaedia on the etymologies of every word, it would be unreadable. I think you know exactly what Doug means, but chose to argue about the word, rather than the principle. What word would you suggest be used instead of homophobia? HiLo48 (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• As Seregain pointed out above, this issue has already been settled via a CfD - see Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 18#Category:Homophobia. This is not the appropriate venue to overturn a CfD - if you disagree with the determination, the appropriate venue for attempting to change the consensus is at Deletion Review. I have, therefore, archived this discussion and encourage disputants to take the disagreement to the proper forum. --Philosopher  03:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Timeline

The timeline at the bottom of the page is lifted straight from the FOTF site. It is not neutral. For example, what evidence is there that they helped out during Hurricane Katrina? --Lionheart Omega (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It needs to be reduced or taken out completely. There is no need for such a long list since the timeline can be accessed through the website. If it is necessary in the article, then only important events should be kept. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 23:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I see the timeline has been discussed before. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Timeline has been removed. As pointed out in the first post by Lionheart Omega, this is lifted off of a webpage, i.e. is a clear copyvio. -Andrew c  18:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tag

OK, I've added an NPOV tag to this article. The article, as I've stated, is a sham, and given what I see of the history, I'm not hugely surprised. I stumble across it while looking for examples of bad writing (sorry guys) to write about on my userpage: I was going to simply use parts of this article, but it's bad enough I must comment:

• The criticism section sucks. In fact, it probably shouldn't exist at all: see WP:CRITICISM. It's recentist: it only has information since 2006, and seems to go on endlessly about minor issues (7 sentences about the Time incident?). It places too much emphasis on homosexuality, when the group has received fair criticism on many other issues (Islam, pushing for right wing judges, anti-abortion, intelligent design, etc.), and the entire section looks to just be a sounding-board for people who don't like the organization.
• Love Won Out is not the only child organization of FOTF, and its inclusion reeks of more axe-grinding. The frequent use of quotation marks, and sentences like They are against same-sex marriage, gay-affirming curricula taught in schools, and other aspects they perceive to be a part of "The Gay Agenda", which they believe is normalizing destructive and "unhealthy" abnormal behavior which all but scream "the people in this organization are idiots."
• The introduction paragraph states From an ethics standpoint, Focus on the Family has been criticized by mainstream medical, psychological and mental health organizations for misleading the public, and top academics have charged Focus on the Family with manipulating research in misleading ways. If that's not weasel words, I don't know what is.

If you would like a comparatively controversial article, you might try looking at Southern Baptist Convention or George W. Bush. While neither is inviting quite as much criticism, you will notice that neither has any criticism section at all. This one, on the other hand, has literally about half its text devoted to axe-grinding. The Evil Spartan (talk) 09:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I second that motion. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 12:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I quite agree with you, Evil Spartan, regarding the article's glaring shortcomings, but rather than just tag it, how about boldly editing it yourself to improve the article? JGHowes - 23:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I did not change it, JGHowes, because I've learned over time that stepping onto a page that has been heavily watched and making heavy-handed POV changes is liable to get someone reverted. Proposing changes beforehand never hurts. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I second that motion. Some pages feel "heavily watched" and this is one of more. Some pages feel as if people feel it is their job to ensure the world nows how evil the suject of the page is and wiki rules do no apply to them. Then some pages feel like there are a number of people working together on that goal. This is one of them. Just look at the page. That said, I'm no expert on this subject, so that's why I'm steering clear of major edits. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've made the changes, and I will explain them below. I've been working on the thing for a while, and I realized that this is just a working version, and I wasn't able to fix it up nearly as much as I would have liked, and there remain some glaring issues (e.g., the second paragraph). By all means, please feel free to edit some of it back in, though I would appreciate a good reasoning as to why, and that it would conform to NPOV:

1. The criticism section has been completely removed per Misplaced Pages:Criticism and Misplaced Pages:NPOV#Article_structure. I have tried to reincorporate it back into the text, though my writing abilities are often lacking, and any help or additions are welcome.
2. I've removed a good deal of piling on. The examples are so prevalent that I will not even write them down.
3. The Love Won Out section is trimmed. Given that it's one of the many ministries with the organization: , its presence, to the exclusion of other ministries, is unnecessary. I must express my sincere disappointment with the previous writers of this article, as I would have hoped they would have tried to pay less attention to issues only dear to themselves.
4. I have removed or reworded some ghastly NPOV problems and weasel words ("Focus on the Family has been criticized... for misleading the public,")
5. I've created a new ministries section, and consolidated a few others into this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Evil Spartan (talk • contribs) 18:50, July 13, 2008

Disambiguation run amok

Why in the world-- excuse the pun-- does this article need to be at Focus on the Family (United States)? What, are the other national FotF organizations completely unrelated to this one? This becomes especially problematic for articles such as James Dobson, as the referential relationship between the subjects of those articles and the "other" articles linked at Focus on the Family becomes severed. (To wit, an editor recently "disambiguated" all references to Focus on the Family in the James Dobson article to Focus on the Family (United States), as though Dobson had nothing to do with the other organizations.) This does not serve readers well, which defeats the purpose of having a disambiguation page.

I am proposing that these articles be merged back into Focus on the Family, and the extant article take a more worldwide view. -- JeffBillman (talk) 06:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the merger. Some of the pages that are suggested to be merged are at a length that they are viable standalone pages. The pages will only grow larger with time and then we would have to then split them (not always easy). What I would like to suggest is that the Focus on the Family page is a summary page of the different groups rather than being a simple dab page. Also, some of the organisations do not have any direct affiliation with the US group.-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The length, particularly of Focus on the Family Canada, is deceiving. Much of the actual information in these articles simply restate what should be stated (and originally was stated) in the original article. For example, the section Focus on the Family Canada#Social activism in Canada explains an organizational mission that is essentially identical to that of the American organization. There's no reason why that section can't be written to conform to a worldwide view. As for the rest of the article, a concise description of the Canadian organization would merit no more than a section. -- JeffBillman (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Merge - these are simply repeats of the same institution. None of these organizations have their own identity outside the larger one, and it's questionable whether they will ever grow. --David Shankbone 14:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge. The size of these articles, individually and collectively, does not warrant separate forks for each country. As Jeff Billman says, putting this in one article will make it easier for the encyclopedia user to research FoF. JGHowes - 18:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The New Zealand group does not state an explicit affiliation with the US group. Therefore it cannot be merged until the connection is made. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh, according to whom? Did Focus on the Family New Zealand just pop up out of thin air, independently (and coincidentally) taking as its name the same name James Dobson selected for his organization? And if there is no link, on what basis do we find sufficient notability for Focus on the Family New Zealand for inclusion in Misplaced Pages? If this article is not merged, then I shall nominate it for AfD as lacking notability. Again, there is no reason why we need to lead readers down a rabbit hole because of trivial differences between regional and national organizations under one heritage, if not one organizational umbrella. We don't, for example, disambiguate United Methodist Church or Southern Baptist Convention even though these consist of several smaller semi-autonomous organizations. I could just imagine the nightmare if we disambiguated the UMC to a list of the Annual Conferences of the United Methodist Church... or worse, disambiguate Baptism to the myriad Baptist churches around the world, theoretically unaffiliated with one another. By the way, the official website of Focus on the Family lists New Zealand on its list of "regions", states that FotF New Zealand was founded in 1999, but does not state that FotF New Zealand is unaffiliated with the parent (and worldwide) organization. -- JeffBillman (talk) 05:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge However, if merge is unacceptable, then we should redirect Focus on the family to Focus on the Family (United States), and move the dismag page to Focus on the Family (disambiguation) that isn't directly linked to. I don't think it is biased to have the most common search term go to the best article, most well known branch. London goes to the UK, even though London,_Arkansas is more relevant to me personally. Pirate 16:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge I vote to have this page merged to be included with a single Focus on the Family page. If in fact this group is related to Focus on the Family, then this information should be included there. There is not a significant difference between the different organizations that warrant that they be separated into separate articles.

Rmanke (talk) 06:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The disamg page is at Focus on the Family (disambiguation) now, if the merge notice is removed we'll add a hatnote on this page to that page.Pirate 18:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Focus on the Family should be the US orginization, with a hatnote ot the disambig page. Unrelated orgs can be picked up there. Tangentially related, like FotF Canada, can have a summary in the main FotF article and a link to the fully article. Focus on the Family (United States) is ridiculous. --Knulclunk (talk) 14:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Strong Support making Focus on the Family (United States) to Focus on the Family. I will do it if needed. It should be done soon, though. TheAE talk/sign 23:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If you can do it, AE, please do. Admin intervention is needed, as the move will now have to be made over an existing page. -- JeffBillman (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done Moved. --Philosopher  22:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Gambling issue under Political Positions

I removed the few lines dealing with a member of the Family Research Council (FRC) speaking before a House Committee because that person was not a Focus on the Family (FOF)representative. An earlier edit mentioned that the two organizations have overlap. However, FRC is not mentioned once in the wikipedia article about Focus on the Family. The FRC entry states that they are independent of FOF. If someone believes that the FRC representative was speaking for FOF then document it and use citations. 74.192.240.71 (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed the edit a second time. There is no connection made in this article between the two organizations. If there is a connection, and it is important, we should be able to source it.--Knulclunk (talk) 03:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

OKAY. I do see that Family Research Council was also established by James Dobson in 1983, but the FRC and FoF were separated in 1992, 15 years before the gambling hearings that had been quoted. If there is a classy way to insert FRC back into this article, I would not be opposed.--Knulclunk (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed the "citation needed" from the statement "the Bible does not explicitly prohibit gambling." No one has found a prohibition of gambling in the Bible, and since I assume that we aren't discovering new passages in the Bible, on does not need a citation for that. Furthermore, the citation needed tag added after every sentence looks like someone who supported the group trying to de-legitimize criticism. Gtbob12 (talk) 10:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Didn't god have a little wager going with Satan over Job? 212.69.51.63 (talk) 01:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Is Focus on the Family a dominionist organization?

Hi everyone,

Recently, I removed a category that asserted that Focus on the Family was a Dominionist organization. At that time, there were no statements in the article that linked Focus on the Family to Dominionism.

Then, JeffBillman added the necessary statements and category:

Various organizations and publications on the political left, including the Atlantic Free Press (Dominionism: Funding the agenda, spreading the word, by whatever means necessary), Jews on First (Dominionism 101), and Daily Kos (Sarah Palin: Dominionist Stalking Horse), have described Focus on the Family as a Dominionist organization.

Finally, Knulclunk reverted JeffBillman's changes and invited us to bring our concerns to this talk page.

Here we are! :)

Do the three references given by JeffBillman state that Focus on the Family is a Dominionist organization? Are the references from a reliable source?

1. Atlantic Free Press (Dominionism: Funding the agenda, spreading the word, by whatever means necessary)

   This reference states that Focus on the Family is dominionist.

   I believe Atlantic Free Press is a reliable source. It is used as a source in the following twelve articles: Maryann Mann, Gerald Celente, American Enterprise Institute, The Disneyland Memorial Orgy, The Irrational Atheist, Alexander Litvinenko assassination theories, Mohamed ElBaradei, Alexander Litvinenko poisoning, Boris Berezovsky, Enhanced interrogation techniques, Alan Greenspan, The God Delusion, Abu Zubaydah.

2. Jews on First (Dominionism 101)

   The Family Values Coalition, Focus on the Family, and the Christian Coalition are called "powerful religious-right organizations", and mentioned in the same paragraph as "dominionist trend", "theocratic trend", "fundamentalist activists", but they are not called dominionist.

   I don't believe Jews on First is a reliable source. I believe its content are opinion pieces. Of some use might be drilling into the news links on the web page.

3. Daily Kos (Sarah Palin: Dominionist Stalking Horse)

   Concerned Women for America, Focus on the Family are called dominionist groups.

   I don't believe Daily Kos is a reliable source. I suggest it is a blog. Of some use might be drilling into the news links on the web page.

If my analysis is correct, one reliable source states that Focus on the Family is Dominionist. I would be willing to change the article to reflect this.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 06:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• We also have Public Eye Magazine, which states: "That same day, a conference sponsored by Moore's Foundation for Moral Law drew a who's who of dominionists and dominionist-influenced Christian rightists, including Howard Philips, Herb Titus, John Eidsmoe, Phyllis Schlafly, Alan Keyes and representatives from such leading Christian Right organization as Coral Ridge Ministries, Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America, and Eagle Forum. One of the featured speakers was Rev. Joseph Morecraft, a leader of the theocratic Christian Reconstructionist movement." source Also Yurica Report, Talk To Action, and others. What's important here is not that FotF is "proven" to be a Dominionist organization, only that a number of publications have made that charge. Because Dominionism is a politically charged label in the first place, and because it has yet to be used as a self-identifier, NPOV demands that we state only that the charge has been made. -- JeffBillman (talk) 07:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I am impressed by the Public Eye Magazine article. Specifically, this sentence: "Recently however, the term has become fashionable with some lumping every form of evangelical Christianity and every faction in the Bush White House into one big, single-minded imperial dominionist plot." That is the purpose of my review of both Category:Christian fundamentalism and Category:Dominionism: to be on guard against lumping. To make sure the article supports the categories that are given.--Kevinkor2 (talk) 12:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree Daily Kos and Jews on First are not reliable sources or are mere blogs. But that Atlantic Free Press does not impress me as reliable, at least in this article. Why just look at the title. "Dominionism: Funding the agenda, spreading the word, by whatever means necessary" "By whatever means necessary" is about as POV as you can get, and it's right there in the title. The article itself says, "there is no more lethal weapon than religion." Does that sound unbiased to anyone? Didn't various non-religious political organizations kill people by the millions? "Militant biblicism"? Come on. We need a far better source than this. "Theofascist dominionist organizations hell bent on promoting and codifying hate and discrimination"? This is supposed to be a reliable source for an encyclopedia? You're not serious, are you? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless an organization specifically calls itself Dominionist or publicly states its mission the strictest Dominionist/Reconstructionist goals; "Reconstructionists themselves use the word dominionism to refer to their belief that civil government should be controlled by Christians alone and conducted according to Biblical law", We can not do it. Otherwise was are using the the term as a sloppy pejorative to demonize religious or conservative groups. It would be like having a gay agenda category that contained GLADD and Brokeback Mountain.--Knulclunk (talk) 12:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

There aren't any organizations that self-identify as Dominionist. And while I'm not sure what you mean by "the strictest Dominionist/Reconstructionist goals", it's pretty clear FotF qualifies, as both the organization's founder and leaders have time and again identified with such Dominionist/Reconstructionist councils as the Coalition on Revival Congress on the Christian Worldview. Let me offer this as a compromise: We ditch the category, but the sourced statements remain. I don't think anyone can doubt that there are a number of people who consider FotF to be Dominionist. While NPOV does not demand that we give their views credence, it does demand that we refrain from dismissing their views with prejudice. ("Prejudice" meant in the judicial sense; i.e. a preconceived judgment or opinion.) -- JeffBillman (talk) 16:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages should not using the term dominionist, as, in this context, it is being used in an editorializing and pejorative way. There is considerable factual information about Focus on the Family's controversial platforms in the article. It is not our job to also tell readers what to think. To slip in rhetorical language under the guise of a quote is directly addressed by the policy on when NOT to use quotations

Even if we were to include the criticism within quotes, the most mainstream source offered so far, an editorial by Rolling Stone writer Bob Moser, also associates Steve Case to sex-chat rooms in the same sentence. Should we include this same quote on the Steve Case and AOL pages too? I think our standards should be higher.--Knulclunk (talk) 06:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Here's another source. Rolling Stone magazine, April 7, 2005: "The Crusaders", by Bob Moser. "While the dominionists rely on grass-roots activists to fight their battles, they are backed by some of America's richest entrepreneurs. Amway founder Rich DeVos, a Kennedy ally who's the leading Republican contender for governor of Michigan, has tossed more than $5 million into the collection plate. Jean Case, wife of former AOL chief Steve Case -- whose fortune was made largely on sex-chat rooms -- has donated $8 million. And Tom Monaghan, founder of Domino's Pizza, is a major source of cash for Focus on the Family, a megaministry working with Kennedy to eliminate all public schools." -- JeffBillman (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I can't even imagine why that would ever be accepted on Misplaced Pages for any reason. First off, the commentary (for that is all it is) does not directly call FotF "dominionist," but simply links a supposed dominionists contributions to them. Second, the authors description of FotF ("a megaministry working ... to eliminate all public schools") is so blatantly false and easily disproven that it makes my head spin to think of how it ever got past an editor. Seregain (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Love Won Out

If you think usage of the term dominionist is editorializing and pejorative, just take a look at the section "Love Won Out". "Love Won Out works with people who seek freedom from an ego-dystonic homosexual orientation"? Please... The entire section is one long POV missive for those who think that homosexuality is a violation of "God's Law". Of course, we can't even say "God's Law" because that would rightly imply that the organization is Dominionist, but whatever... This issue stands apart from the issue of Dominionism. Let's try to find a more NPOV way to describe Love Won Out. -- JeffBillman (talk) 19:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, this paragraph does not sugar-coat the agenda of the organization and there is a large criticism section on the main Love Won Out page. What more do you suggest?--Knulclunk (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

{outdent}I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the paragraph does not sugar-coat the agenda of the organization. (As for the main Love Won Out page, I'll let that stand on its own merits; it's not on my watchlist, and I've only read that page a time or two.) To my way of thinking, virtually the entire paragraph is oriented toward a conservative Christian viewpoint, and a parochial one at that. Allow me to take it sentence by sentence:

• "The purpose of Focus on the Family's Love Won Out ministry is to exhort and equip the church to respond to homosexuality in a Christ-like way." First of all, "Christ-like way" is almost hopelessly POV. In articles about Christian denominations and organizations, it's usually a bad idea to compare the subject of the article to Jesus Christ or the early Church. Secondly, which church does Love Won Out "exhort and equip"? On what authority do they claim this responsibility? If "the church" is meant to apply to all Christian denominations, then there is an implicit statement here that those denominations which respond to homosexuality with more forbearance than Love Won Out are not "Christ-like", compounding the POV of that phrase. This is not to mention the fact that the described role would almost certainly be self-appointed, which gives rise to yet another set of POV issues.
• "Along with Exodus International and NARTH, Love Won Out works with people who seek freedom from an ego-dystonic homosexual orientation and assists those who have participated in homosexual behavior to experience forgiveness for sin." As I complained above, the phrase "ego-dystonic homosexual orientation" is without any real specific meaning, instead implying that homosexuality itself is "ego-dystonic". Indeed, the article at ego-dystonic sexual orientation reveals that the condition is not necessarily related to homosexuality at all; thus, to conflate egodystonic conditions with homosexuality is to discriminate and to attempt to apply a pejorative term to homosexuality, akin to an anti-Christian organization offering people freedom from "schizophrenic Christian religion". Moreover, the implication is that homosexuals have not (or cannot) "experience forgiveness for sin" vis a vis sins that have nothing to do with homosexuality, thus also implying that homosexuals are not Christians. And that's in addition to the already controversial (and POV) stance that homosexuality is a sin.
• "Love Won Out teaches that 'he foundation of society for the family is marriage of a man and a woman for life' and that 'Scripture is very clear in its condemnation of homosexual conduct, for such sin is a deviation from God's creation and design.'" This is better, as it simply presents what the subject of the article presents with no further inferences. Even so, this does nothing to balance the POV, as the only source cited in the entire paragraph comes from the subject of the article itself. Thus, we have a serious lack of reliable sources for the paragraph. I know I said that this stands apart from the discussion of Dominionism, but to be frank, I can't help but notice there are fewer reliable sources for this paragraph than for the one statement I tried to add to the article. It reeks of POV. -- JeffBillman (talk) 02:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's take your second point, because I agree, that section is the most flawed. Perhaps we change the existing:

"Love Won Out works with people who seek freedom from an ego-dystonic homosexual orientation and assists those who have participated in homosexual behavior to experience forgiveness for sin"

To a more neutral and simple:

"Love Won Out works with people who struggle with unwanted homosexual desires"

This would remove the loaded terms of "freedom" and "sin" as well as the ridiculous "ego-dystonic homosexual orientation". What do you think?--Knulclunk (talk) 03:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I like it! If we can incorporate some material from neutral third party sources as well, I think we'll be close. I'd also like to rephrase "in a Christ-like way" in a more NPOV manner. Maybe "according to Christian principles"? -- JeffBillman (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Very cool. I think this was the most quickly resolved POV dispute in the history of Misplaced Pages. ;-) Thanks for all your help, Knulchunk! -- JeffBillman (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you as well! Your quote is aces, by the way. Cheers!--Knulclunk (talk) 01:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The Truth Project

Why is there no mention of the Truth Project at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.236.84.121 (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

If you find a reference to The Truth Project by a reliable source, go ahead and add it.

For those of you who don't know, "The Truth Project is a DVD-based small group curriculum comprised of 12 one-hour lessons taught by Dr. Del Tackett. This home study is the starting point for looking at life from a biblical perspective. Each lesson discusses in great detail the relevance and importance of living the Christian worldview in daily life." (Because this information is from a self-published source from Focus on the Family, it cannot estabilish notability for adding The Truth Project as a separate article. As well, it would not criticize The Truth Project.)

By the way, I have been through The Truth Project. See my user page.--Kevinkor2 (talk) 05:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I have found a third party reliable source for information about the Truth Project.

Waddington, Lynda (January 25, 2010), "Focus on the Family's 'Truth Project' used to retrain Christians at Iowa capitol", The Colorado Independent, The American Independent News Network, retrieved 2010-02-08

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 13:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

What are family values?

Twice in the article we are told that FotF wants to protect or teach family values. However, that wikilink tells us that "the term is vague, and means different things to different people". There is no other reference to clarify the meaning of the term.

Given the apparent link in that term back to the name of the organization, it really leaves the reader with a pretty sloppy definition of what FotF is all about.

HiLo48 (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... well, the article is filled with its beliefs, which FotF considers "family values". It somewhat goes without saying, but I do see your point. American Eagle (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Part of the propaganda approach of bodies like this is the attempt to narrow the definition of such terms, suggesting, for example, that any grouping that doesn't fit their narrow definition cannot be called a family. It's deliberate manipulation of the language. Misplaced Pages should not be playing along with such tactics. Maybe the term "family values" in the article needs to be expanded to say something like "what FotF claims to be family values". HiLo48 (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

All of what you said is a WP:POV fringe theory. We need to be careful to follow WP:CLAIM, but something like, "what FotF considers to be family values", seems acceptable. American Eagle (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe the views of this organization is more fringe than mine. But back to the words. The word "considers" means something quite different from "claims". We know what the organization claims. We don't really know what it considers. That is the private business of its leaders and members. HiLo48 (talk) 01:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The family values article is not so vague: "Social and religious conservatives often use the term "family values" to promote conservative ideology that supports traditional morality or Christian values... These groups variously oppose abortion, pornography, pre-marital sex, homosexuality, certain aspects of feminism, cohabitation, separation of church and state, and depictions of sexuality in the media." This definition does not conflict with the FotF page, does it?--Knulclunk (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Seregain (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I see significant cultural differences in our differencing understandings of these terms. I am not from the USA and clearly see these things differently. Language can be an issue too. Not likely to be resolved in a brief discussion here. I shall withdraw and observe for now. HiLo48 (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be a brief discussion. I actually agree with you that saying that the organization claims something is not a case for WP:WEASEL to be invoked. Since "family values" is a buzzword with specific meaning in this context, it is not improper to point out that this is a reference to this particular organization's version of "family values". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

My experience here so far tells me that when more than one editor wants to so assertively defend an article from even the slightest moderating influence, it is wise to step back for a while. It will be interesting to see how the discussion evolves. HiLo48 (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Most pages on Misplaced Pages about conservative Christian organizations say that they support family values. When people say family-friendly or family-films it is well understood that they are speaking of things which are appropriate for the entire family and/or what would be appealing for a family. It's the same about family values; the values which have been known to help families thrive and prosper for thousands of years. Invmog (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a misleading characterization. The issues when "family values" is used as a political buzzword rarely have much of anything to do with entertainment and appropriateness for a family, but focus on what makes a family (procreation, homosexuality.) Just pointing out that using that is not a good comparison, and if FotF is to be describe by your definition, it would be inaccurate, as the issues they deal with don't generally deal with actual existing families. 98.168.192.162 (talk) 08:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The use of phrases like "claims to" and "their version of" are clear examples of weasel wording. Use of such phrases would not be accepted on articles about organizations on the opposite end of the socio-political spectrum as FotF. I'd prove it to you, but I don't want to run afoul of WP:POINT. Seregain (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"Claims to" is not weasel wording, depending on the circumstance, it appears, and justifiably so, in wikipedia articles often - not that I disagree entirely. The fact that the family values article gives more than one different perspective on the topic should mean that the article should be more specific. The Christian values article would be something more article to link to with the descriptor. "Family values" alone does not have one single objective meaning, merely one that is more commonly used than the other.

In the context of FotF, "family values" = Christian values. Since "family values" clearly does not have an objective meaning, saying "claims to" is not necessarily using weasel wording, but it could clearly be written better than that.98.168.192.162 (talk) 07:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Most if not almost all Americans understand what is meant by family values, which might help to explain why HiLo raised the question as family values may not be so commonly referred to as such in Australia. No worries, though, because most of the English readers which read this article are most likely Americans. Having "family values" linked to the article "Family values" should be enough for anyone to figure out its meaning if they are not familiar with American English. Let's keep it simple. Invmog (talk) 03:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I'm fairly familiar with what bodies like FotF want Family Values to mean, but that's not the point. Family Values are two simple words that should be allowed to mean the values of any family, those acceptable to FotF, and those that aren't. It is important to clearly identify the particular narrow set of Family Values that FotF accepts, and those it rejects. As soon as we take the meaning as given, we are actually supporting the cause of such bodies. Their use of language is very deliberate, using seemingly very broad, simple terminology to actually mean something very much narrower than the literal meaning of the words. They MUST be defined.

As for the audience being mostly American, that is a sad, ignorant and selfish delusion. HiLo48 (talk) 04:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Simply linking it to the family values article is enough. It says right at the beginning of the article that it is an American conservative organization - anyone wondering what "family values" means in the context of American conservatism can simply look at the appropriate section in the article. If there are any notable exceptions - of FotF differing in what it supports from what is listed at the article, the exceptions can be noted. As for HiLo48's concern that the use of "family values" is improper, it is no more unclear or improper than saying "conservative" or "Christian" or "American." "Family values" is a term of art (as opposed to a combination of the words "family" and "values"), and to the extent that FotF's usage doesn't differ from the normal understanding of that term (explained in the family values article, for example)(FotF doesn't differ in any major way to my knowledge) there is no need to define them. To do so would be to ruin the focus of the article, which should be on FotF, not on the definition of "family values". --Philosopher  22:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you mentioned that it "says right at the beginning of the article that it is an American conservative organization". At the end of the article it lists eleven other countries where it operates. That first sentence is, in fact, quite misleading and should probably be changed. I've made my point about the "clever" usage of words by bodies like this. I will work on some acceptable words about it for the article. There are many places where writers have highlighted the particularly narrow set of familiy values espoused by FotF. HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

HiLo, you don't seem to understand what we are saying. The "familiy values espoused by FotF," as you so put it, is used in the exact same way in the common meaning of the phrase "family values" throughout the U.S. and elsewhere. It's certainly does not mean "the values of any family" as you put it. To say that is an incorrect usage of the term. If you really want to work on securing a definite, universally accepted version of "family values" then take it up on the "Family values" article's talk page. Invmog (talk) 00:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The Family values article is, correctly, very cautious about laying down a precise definition of the term. It says "Because the term is vague, and means different things to different people, "family values" has been described as a political buzzword, power word, or code word". This article cannot depend on a meaning that "everybody knows" while this very encyclopedia says it is a very vague term. I agree with what the Family values article says. I see no need to change it. This article is the one with the problem.

Do realize that Misplaced Pages is not a reliable enough reference for Misplaced Pages according to its own guidelines. What if we changed "family values" to "American family values"? Invmog (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

That would solve none of the problems, and simply pile on more. CopaceticThought (talk) 22:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

What would solve the problem then? Current consensus seems to favor leaving the article as it is on the subject as "family values." HiLo, you said about "family values" that they "MUST be defined." However, saying that "Family Values are two simple words that should be allowed to mean the values of any family," doesn't exactly nail down a precise definition either, it just makes the current definition more broad and useless. Dictionary.com (for comparison purposes) says this about family values: "the moral and ethical principles traditionally upheld and transmitted within a family, as honesty, loyalty, industry, andfaith " which is perfectly in line with how 'family values' is used in this article. Invmog (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I would venture to say that the best way would be to say something to the effect of "FOTF supports what it considers to be traditional family values", and to then list examples of these as the article currently does. This recognizes some possible ambiguity in what the term means but doesn't denigrate the organization. CopaceticThought (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

What would solve the problem? Don't use the term family values at all. It is a term cleverly used by such organizations to sound as if they're using normal language, but actually meaning something very biased towards their point of view. If we use the term here to mean what FotF wants it to mean, we are actually supporting their position. Those words should be allowed to remain with whatever meaning any reader wants them to have. The goals and ideals of FotF must be explicitly explained in the article. Many already are. They cannot be defined in terms of an expression whose meaning is as unclear or politically loaded as "family values". HiLo48 (talk) 06:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, so that's your opinion. Mine is that the term "family values" is used in its general sense in the article and that Focus on the Family is not being half as sneaky as you make them out to be. So, unless you can supply notable, reliable, and relevant resources, then it's just my POV against your POV, a.k.a. nothing changes. Invmog (talk) 15:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

What's POV about asking that we avoid using an unclear term? I'm suggesting using more explicit terms. My opinion is sometimes on show here, but I'm not asking for it to appear in the article. Just suggesting that we avoid using terms that can mean more than one thing. HiLo48 (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"More explicit terms"? Avoid "using terms that can mean more than one thing"? I'd say that about 99% of the time the words "family values" are understood to mean the exact same thing as what they mean in the Focus on the Family article. If that other 1% exists then they can feel free to read all about family values on the article dedicated to that subject. Invmog (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Given that the term "family values" is almost universally understood within the context of American politics to refer to worldviews such as what FOTF espouses, and that the wording in the article states that Focus on the Family believes their policies to fall under the umbrella of "family values", and not that the values necessarily are or are not "family values", I fail to see the case for a NPOV violation. Perhaps you think it's sneaky, but to make that belief a factor in what goes into that article borders on inserting your own POV in my opinion. CopaceticThought (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. So have we gone on long enough? Can we leave this aspect of the article alone now? Invmog (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

News articles from eBar about Tim Tebow, Super Bowl 2010, and Focus On The Family

http://www.ebar.com/arts/art_article.php?sec=lavendertube&article=111
http://www.ebar.com/common/inc/article_print.php?sec=sports&article=275
Native94080 (talk) 07:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

A Mighty Army section, SPLC

Hi, I put the detail back in about the SPLC. I think I may have had the wrong page on the previous link. I really don't like the subject name "A Mighty Army" and I'm not even sure that detail needs to have it's own subject, but it didn't fit anywhere else since the article is very pro FOTF.--DCX (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep. I like that reference. And I've had a go at an alternative section title: Anti-gay position. I's pretty much what the reference says. HiLo48 (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Newly created/added cat is POV/OR

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) 22:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

They are listed as an anti-gay group in SPLC website as the article mentions.--DCX (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

So? You may be violating WP:OR and/or WP:SYN. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the revised section, now titled Anti-gay position, makes membership of the category valid. It's a claim based directly on the reference cited. It's neither WP:OR nor WP:SYN. HiLo48 (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

A single ref? For a cat? Has it been your experience that groups can be labeled by wiki editors using cats on the basis of a single ref and setting aside all other concerns? Please provide example pages. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't know Misplaced Pages well enough to cite other such categorisations. But I don't see the problem. What do you mean by "setting aside all other concerns"? What are those concerns? HiLo48 (talk) 23:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The ones stated in the cat's Talk page and elsewhere. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

This article from Focus on the Family confirms there position opposing LGBT rights "While we need and appreciate your support, that alone will not turn the advancing tide of the homosexual movement, especially with regard to the issue of same-sex marriage. Your concern and convictions must be translated into action." et al.

http://www2.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters/a000000804.cfm --DCX (talk) 02:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling - No, if you can't give the reasons here, it's not my job to go looking elsewhere for YOUR reasons. That's not my job. It's yours to present them here. I asked a simple question. Please answer it constructively. HiLo48 (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Right, Dougcweho, but opposition to same-sex marriage is not necessarily the same as opposition to LGBT rights, and to the extent you say it is, that's OR POV SYN, what have you. There are gays who themselves are opposed to same-sex marriage but not opposed to true LGBT rights. How would you label them? And this is an encyclopedia, not a wp:soapbox for you or anyone else to label people or groups.

Wrong, HiLo48, the burden is on those applying the label to defend it. You are setting up a straw man, me, and saying if I do not defend my position, then the cat should be allowed. That is a clever argument, but it is fallacious. And watch your tone--it does not sound too friendly to me. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Legitimate makes a compelling argument. Well said.Boromir123 (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Legitimate hasn't actually presented an argument at all. HiLo48 (talk) 02:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Uh, oh. I warned HiLo48 about his tone. To no avail, apparently. Everyone on all sides of all fences is getting along nicely here, but it appears HiLo48 is about to cut lose, forget Wiki policy, and just go for the throat.

HiLo48, please be respectful of everyone here. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I asked an innocent question. Got told to look elsewhere for the answer. then got told it was a good argument. No matter how much respect I want to show, that response from two of you now is just silly. I was willing to accept a sensible answer. That you won't even try to answer my question here simply strengthens my original view. To back it up with allegations of a lack of respect is not very convincing either.

That's enough from me, and I hope everybody, about other posters, rather than the issue. So I ask again - What do you mean by "setting aside all other concerns"? What are those concerns? (There. Nothing nasty in those questions. Do have a go.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I reference my previous statements. In addition, WP:CATEGORY, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:ORIGINAL, WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:RELIABLE, WP:VERIFY, WP:NOT, and perhaps others unknown to me at the moment.

In your case only, WP:BATTLE is also relevant. "Misplaced Pages is a volunteer community, and does not require its users to give any more time and effort than they wish. Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other users." --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I can see your point of view, but you clearly cannot see mine, and you have given me the obvious language in which to express it. I don't want to put in the time and effort looking elsewhere to find the answers to questions I have genuinely and innocently asked of you here. Your lack of respect for my position is obvious. It certainly colours my view on your other thoughts here. HiLo48 (talk) 03:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

So, why not remove the section but rather add a 'Criticisms' sections and say that Focus on the Family has been criticized for being against homosexual behavior? We could even add that they're not listed as a hate group if y'all want, or what other middle ground within Misplaced Pages policy is there? Invmog (talk) 03:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Controversy

Why isn't there a controversy section and why isn't there information in the introduction about recent controversies concerning FOTF ?

In May the co-founder of FOTF was found hiring a male escort to 'carry his luggage'. The facts are the male escort was hired through a gay escort website and the male escort reported that his client liked naked body rubs. Surely this is worth of being included given the FOTF concentration on gay issues.

One of the numerous stories is here: http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2010/05/george_rekers_is_a_homosexual_says_escort.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.117.235.240 (talk) 04:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

That's just blog gossip. If you got The New York Times (or similar) to provide evidence and confessions from FOTF, it would then be encyclopedic. American Eagle (talk) 05:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Controversy sections are frowned upon for the most part. Also, not only is that story unverified gossip, but it is about Rekers, not FotF. 64.184.247.114 (talk) 20:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the original question posed in this section remains valid, and hasn't been satisfactorily answered: why isn't there a controversy section and why isn't there information in the introduction about any of the controversies—recent or in the past—concerning FOTF? A quick Google search for "Focus on the Family" and "controversy" finds more than 600,000 results about the group's polarizing positions on abortion and LGBT rights, yet the lead to this article omits any direct reference to those positions. It misrepresents the group to omit the abundance of evidence for its controversial reputation. Lightfootlad (talk) 10:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no requirement for an article to have a controversy section per WP:CRIT. Many articles do have such a section. On the other hand many articles do not: criticism is integrated into the body of the article. This article employs the latter method. – Lionel 12:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem—the criticism is integrated into the body of the article and therefore scattered, which makes it much more difficult to trace the various controversies associated with Focus on the Family. Misplaced Pages, like other encyclopedias, is meant to be a reference work, so a consolidated section bringing the information about the controversies together under a single heading would be useful for ease of reference. There is also nothing to indicate Focus on the Family's controversial reputation in the lead to the article, which seems to be a significant omission considering the abundance of material available online on the subject. If there were a well-cited section relating to the various controversies, it could be mentioned in the lead. That would help direct users looking specifically for that information. Lightfootlad (talk) 10:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

(This is my opinion on the article Focus on the Family...) Well I got so mad at this article, That I came out of retirement to offer some opinions and comments. First, this article seems to be heavily in favor of Focus on the Family, so much so that I wonder if that organization didn't write this themselves. Second, There is absolutely NOTHING that says an article should not have a controversy section. Third, who cares if such sections are looked down upon... Controversy sections tells the reader exactly whats going on in an organization. Controversy sections assist in research, especially if someone is trying to get the full picture of an organization. You cannot escape Controversy.... This article reads as if Focus on the Family wrote it themselves... I should request that the neutrality of this article be checked. And that's my opinion on this article Magnum Serpentine (talk) 08:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I wrote some words in another place recently (I was arguing against a Criticism section for John Dawkins), which I will now use here.... "Just about everyone has somebody who disagrees with them about something. Some, like outspoken atheists, will have more than many from conservative religious parts of society who disagree. That's a given. We cannot possibly list all the criticism, so what's the point of listing any? We should just describe what's significant about someone (i.e. why they have an article here) and let others decide on the merits of their actions and views. The same goes for people significant for their strong religious views. List those views, and let it stand. Going any further will inevitably create the debate of "how much further?" So, no criticism." We say FotF is from the Christian Right, is socially conservative, strongly opposes LGBT rights, abortion, pornography, legalized gambling, etc. It's obvious that a lot of people will disagree with its position. Why should the article try to say so? How far would we want to go? HiLo48 (talk) 08:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not necessarily for or against controversy sections. However I will say for what it's worth that Featured articles do not have them. IMO stripping the critisism from the body of the article and creating a controversy section would not be an improvement. – Lionel 22:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Having fun?

Having a good time editing FOTF? Expand your horizons here... Lionel (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Feminism vs. "militant feminism"

We have a source from FOTF's executive vice president published in their official magazine called "The Feminist Mistake" which contains such choice quotes as "I hope people will see the feminist movement for what it is — hurtful to women. Feminism’s two focal points are its love affair with abortion and lesbianism." and "Feminism discounts every bit of value the Lord has placed on living in relation to Him." If you don't think that supports the statement that FOTF is opposed to feminism, that's very nice, but it means you have these options:

1. Remove the statement.
2. Find another source that supports what you want to say.
3. Go with this Chicago Sun-Times piece which includes "militant feminism," but in just those scare quotes.

"Remove the cited material and repeatedly replace it with challenged uncited material" is not an option. The claim that the body of the article supports the statement that it's only "militant feminism" FOTF opposes is obviously complete nonsense, since the body of the article says nothing about it, so please start looking at realistic options, rather than at re-inserting the uncited information and immediately seeking page protection. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

SPLC source

There have been a series of sources used to support the lede claim that the SPLC considers them an anti-gay group due to them misrepresenting research &c. Most of the sources given have been sufficient for showing that SPLC considers them anti-gay, but not the why we are giving. Even source that says the the SPLC considers them anti-gay and considers them to be misrepresenting research doesn't mean that they consider them to be anti-gay because they are misrepresenting research.

I think there's actually appropriate source to be found (or at least something close), just from some memories of editing the National Organization for Marriage article; I don't have time to go hunt it at the moment. I've left the claim in with a "citation needed" flag. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

And now an IP editor has added a different source that still doesn't make the claim it's supposed to be supporting. Can we reduce the claim to saying that the SPLC branded them an anti-gay group but remove the claim of why until we have specific sourcing for the why? --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I support your idea in principle. Also, the SPLC matter is not handled well in the lead - it should be moved down to the end of the lead and be reworded/pared down so it doesn't read like a litany of complaints. Belchfire (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It definitely belongs in these lead, but the deeper issue here is your claim that we don't know why the SPLC calls them anti-gay. The SPLC answers that question directly by stating that they misrepresent research so as to support anti-gay conclusions. There's no ambiguity here, and nothing to interpret. 24.45.42.125 (talk) 00:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Which source and what quote from that source are you referring to? We need one where SPLC specifically states that that is why they've been characterized as an anti-gray group. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

What we know is immaterial. What counts is what we can verifiably show with references. At the moment we have one source that talks about what the SPLC thinks - the SPLC itself. The citation given does NOT support the current wording in the lead, nor do other sources further down in the article. So, until such a source is provided, the lead as-written is plainly defamatory and, for all we know, possibly false. I'm reverting the second half of that sentence for now, and what remains is probably all that needs to be there per WP:LEAD. If explanatory material is brought forward later, it needs to be expanded in the body of the article before anything goes in the opening paragraphs. Belchfire (talk) 01:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

SPLC has a total of one sentence in the article body. That is not enough content to justify having SPLCs opinion in the lede. This fails WP:MOSINTRO. – Lionel 01:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep. WP:MOSBEGIN explains what I've been trying to say quite nicely. "The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belchfire (talk • contribs) 02:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The fact that FOTF is an anti-gay organization is documented extensively in both the "Position on same-sex_marriage" and "Misrepresentation of research" sections, and it's one of the defining characteristics of the organization. For this reason, we must mention it in the lead. Of course, we can't just say it without sourcing it, which is where the SPLC comes in. You've said nothing to refute this, so it stands.

In the last version I touched, we explain the SPLC's categorization of FOF as "due to its promotion of discrimination against LGBT people, promotion of scientific ignorance, and misrepresentation of research". Let's look at each part.

The part about promoting discrimination is supported by the current citation, where it says, "On Focus' 47-acre campus in Colorado Springs, some 1,300 employees battle against gay rights, sex education and women's rights with an enormous annual budget of $130 million." This is a good general statement, but details are what make it clear.

The part about promotion of scientific ignorance and misrepresenting research is supported in a few places, including my citation, http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2011/07/20/u-s-senator-catches-anti-gay-testifier-misrepresenting-study/, which you removed.

In short, the entire SPLC section in the lead is a well-cited summary. Any attempt to remove it will lead to escalation. I've decided it would be interesting to learn how Misplaced Pages resolves conflicts caused by people who blatantly ignore citations. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

What you're engaging in is adding your own leaps; the SPLC says they are and anti-gay group and the SPLC says that they misrepresent research, but we're looking for a source that says that the SPLC says that the reason FotF is classified as an anti-gay group is because they misrepresent research. SPLC says a lot of thing about Focus, and it's not our job to guess which one of those things makes them meet the SPLC qualifications.

If you wish to escalate this, the next logical step would be a Request For Comment. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

If I say that Jeffrey Dahmer is a murderer and then I go on to list who he killed, we would not be stretching anything to say that I'm calling him a murderer because of the people he killed. In the same way, if the SPLC says that FOTF is anti-gay and then goes on to list the anti-gay things they did, it's not a stretch. If you think it is, you need to explain why, in detail. You can do it here, or in an RfC, but you need to do it. Otherwise, your statement has all the appearance of a flat lie, and I'd hate to assume the worst without giving you a chance to explain yourself. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines go beyond "what Still-24-45-42-125 thinks is 'not a stretch'". We have policies such as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, which reject things like finding SPLC classifying the group an anti-gay group on one page and finding them saying Focus misrepresented research on another and combining them to make an original claim. I cannot, of course, keep you from assuming whatever you choose to assume, no matter how ungrounded in the truth it may be. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

You are, I hope unintentionally, mischaracterizing the content of our sources. The same article that talks of its "battle against gay rights" also mentions scientific ignorance based on misrepresenting studies, such as "false information about how AIDS is transmitted". Again, you need to answer this question, not mislead readers about our citations. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

You are, of course, free to go on demanding that everyone read into documents the things that you choose to read into them, that anyone who doesn't do so is being untruthful, and that others need to do exactly what you tell them to do. You may, however, eventually discover that not everyone here is your seven year old kid brother, and thus these techniques are weak. If you want to convince the other editors who are already here and thus gain consensus, you may wish to take the concerns voiced seriously, examining precisely what the sentence says and precisely what the source says. If you want to bring in other eyes, do a WP:RFC. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

This sort of borderline-insulting, thoroughly unproductive response is why I've bumped this up the dispute resolution ladder. Thank you for reassuring me that I wasn't wrong to do this. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire gutting the lead

Given the fact that there is a content dispute that we're carefully trying to resolve, I don't believe it's at all reasonable to make bold changes to the lead, particularly ones that erase the text we've come to some tentative agreement about. I suggest keeping edits small, with the recognition that not all of them will be accepted. I also suggest discussing any larger edits here to gain a consensus in advance. Otherwise, we'll just wind up with the article protected. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

First, learn what vandalism is. Second, don't misrepresent other editors' edits ("vandalism", "gutting the lead"). Third, stop editing tendentiously and disruptively.

For purposes of fostering any discussion that might be needed, here's what was done...

Old version:

Focus on the Family (FOTF or FotF) is an American evangelical Christian tax-exempt non-profit organization founded in 1977 by psychologist James Dobson, and is based in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Focus on the Family is one of a number of evangelical parachurch organizations that rose to prominence in the 1980s. It is considered to be an anti-gay group by several organizations. A component of the American Christian right, it is active in promoting interdenominational work toward its views on social conservative public policy. Focus on the Family is also currently the primary sponsor for Phil Vischer's JellyTelly.

Focus on the Family's stated mission is "nurturing and defending the God-ordained institution of the family and promoting biblical truths worldwide." The core promotional activities of the organization include a daily radio broadcast by Dobson and his colleagues, providing free resources and family counseling according to Focus on the Family views, and publishing magazines, videos, and audio recordings. The organization also produces programs for targeted audiences, such as Adventures in Odyssey for children, dramas, and Family Minute with James Dobson. Both Focus on the Family and Adventures in Odyssey are broadcast on Trans World Radio in the UK.

New version:

Focus on the Family (FOTF or FotF) is an American tax-exempt, non-profit organization founded in 1977 by psychologist James Dobson, based in Colorado Springs, Colorado. A component of the Christian right, it is active in promoting interdenominational harmony and works toward its views on socially conservative public policy. Focus on the Family is one of a number of evangelical parachurch organizations that rose to prominence in the 1980s.

Focus on the Family's stated mission is "nurturing and defending the God-ordained institution of the family and promoting biblical truths worldwide." The core promotional activities of the organization include a daily radio broadcast by Dobson and his colleagues, providing free resources and family counseling according to Focus on the Family views, and publishing magazines, videos, and audio recordings. The organization also produces programs for targeted audiences, such as Adventures in Odyssey for children, dramas, and Family Minute with James Dobson. Both Focus on the Family and Adventures in Odyssey are broadcast on Trans World Radio in the UK. Focus on the Family is also currently the primary sponsor for Phil Vischer's JellyTelly.

Several organizations have listed Focus on the Family as an anti-gay group.

Nothing was removed - only reorganized for logical flow, better style, and to make it compliant with relevant Misplaced Pages policies and practices regarding how a lead should be composed. The content dispute has been resolved; the results were incorporated into these changes. The suggestion that this was somehow "vandalism" or "gutting" the lead is not only laughable - it's also highly uncivil. Belchfire (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

A suggestion: instead of just providing the two versions, why don't you compile a list of the specific changes you made and the reasoning behind each one? That would probably help the discussion. Arc de Ciel (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Arc, the change I made was to remove the focus on the SPLC and instead list a variety of organizations that consider FotF to be anti-gay. This is based on the compromise that Noleander came up with.

The changes that Belchfire has made, and which I object to, amount to the removal of any mention of the organization's reputation as anti-gay from the lead. This does not appear to be at all consistent with the fragile consensus that we've built up.

As I said earlier, I do not believe that his solo effort to rewrite the article is a productive use of his time, given the amount of genuine controversy over its content. He moved too boldly, and then pretended to be, in his own words, making only "non-controversial changes". Frankly, this is nothing short of a lie, and there's no nicer way to say it without joining him in dishonesty. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts. If it was a "mass deletion", why don't you show us what was deleted? Belchfire (talk) 00:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The mention of SPLC's designation of FOTF is still in the lead, just moved from the third sentence to a different paragraph. The three references are still there, too. 72Dino (talk) 00:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

In Belchfire's version, the anti-gay status is buried at the very end of the lead. If it could run any further, it would. :-) Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

This one item is not the most significant thing about the organization, but it is part of the summary. We compromise as part of making a consensus. So, it is still in the lead with three references. 72Dino (talk) 01:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The compromise was to trim it down and drop the specific reference to the SPLC. It was not to hide it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Wait, wut? An hour ago you said I deleted any mention of it. You mean your edit summary and purported reasons for reverting it were ca-ca? Whodathunkit? You mean your charges of "VANDALISMMMM!!!!!!" were based on horse puckey? I am shocked - SHOCKED I tell you - at this mea culpa. Belchfire (talk) 01:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for providing such a wonderful example of what civility looks like. The reality is that your bad edit did such a great job burying the sentence that I didn't see it. But, hey, why assume good faith? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it was pretty tough to see because it was buried so deeply within its own paragraph. Spare us. You said I deleted it completely after I re-posted the new revision here in the Talk thread that you started. I was assuming your good faith when I posted the before and after versions for your convenience. Now it's time for you to admit that you acted hastily and on false pretenses, instead of trying to spin your screw-ups to be somebody else's fault. Belchfire (talk) 01:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Do go on blaming me for how bad your change was and shifting the focus away from how bad your change was. That's very productive. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You were still angrier than you should have been, though. :-) (Not that that excuses incivility from either side, of course.) Also, if you want to quickly see a summary of the changes made in an edit, you can use the "diff" link in your watchlist, or "compare revisions" in the page history.

Also, when I made my suggestion, I actually meant to direct that at Belchfire, since it was his edits that were being disputed and he had made several at once. Arc de Ciel (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

In my defense, there's been a recent bout of bad behavior and incivility on his part, so I'm less patient with him than I might otherwise be. I'll try to remain calm, though, and focus on the article. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire's change is an improvement. The lede flows more logically with the anti-gay stuff relocated. And while not unanimous, it looks like Belch's change has consensus based on sound reasoning. – Lionel 09:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Next Step: create new version of lead that summarizes body

Comment - I think the lead is best when it just contains a broad statement like "Several organizations consider FOTF to be anti-gay ..." . I see no need to mention SPLC in the lead, even though they are well-known and well-regarded in the civil rights arena. The body of the article, on the other hand, can contain lots of detail in the Same-Sex marriage section, including quotes from organizations, etc. I see that some of the original problems in that section have been remedied: it used to contain misleading summary of SPLC's view, but now it is much more accurate. As for the dispute immediately above, I think that Belchfire was making a good-faith effort to improve the article, and Still-24 simply overreacted. It happens. I suggest that, from this point forward, all comments should focus on the content, not the contributors (see Misplaced Pages:Comment on content, not on the contributor). Focus on suggesting specific improvements to wording & phrasing. --Noleander (talk) 03:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

One of the little things you pick up in journalism classes is that people stop reading a section when they've had enough. The deeper a sentence is buried, the less chance anyone will be around to read it. On that basis, moving the anti-gay sentence to the very bottom of the lead is not indicative of a good-faith effort.

In any case, I think the current state of the article is an improvement over what it was. We can do better, though. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think a stand alone sentence in the lead section instead of buried in a paragraph gives it too much prominence, if anything. But I think where we are right now is the best compromise. 72Dino (talk) 04:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it actually belongs as either the second sentence of the first or second paragraph. That's one of those things which could be better. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I think this is one of those situations where you personally feel it is important and I personally feel it is not. That's why I think this compromise may be best. Perhaps an RFC would expand the eyes looking at this article and bring some additional insight. Anyway, that's my opinion. Thanks, 72Dino (talk)`

WP:LEAD says that the lead is supposed to summarize the body. So it would probably be best for the lead to contain three paragraphs: (1) overview/history/org; (2) ministries; (3) policies/activities. In the third paragraph would be the sentence: "FOTF believes that marriage should be limited to man/woman." Immediately following that sentence would be "Several organizations consider FOTF to be anti-gay ..." . --Noleander (talk) 04:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

That's not unreasonable. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

And I actually can accept that, too. 72Dino (talk) 04:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

What's been proposed here - and agreed to - is an awful lot like what I did yesterday. Just sayin'. All I was really trying to do is the the sentence about SPLC out from between two unrelated sentences. (I'm pretty sure they talked about that sort of thing in journalism class, no?) Disregard that last comment, but try to capture the sentiment. We're making progress here that could have been made yesterday, with a more collaborative attitude. Let's see your ideas, guys. Belchfire (talk) 04:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

To be frank, I'd really like to make forward progress on this article, but take a look at the article history and you'll see a battleground of false steps that had to be reverted. Rather than have a slow edit war, we should discuss the direction of the article here before making changes that are likely to get reverted anyhow. Consensus first, edit second, progress third. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:BRD was invented for a reason and the 'B' doesn't stand for 'before'. At this point, we've agreed that the lead is broken and needs a re-write. We've agreed in principle to the basic structure. I'd like to think we can agree that the notorious sentence about SPLC is logically out of place in its current location. Good so far? Belchfire (talk) 06:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

BRD is not working. Let's try DE (discuss and edit). Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

BRD works fine and it's the law of the land here. Go ahead and discuss, I just recapped where we are. Belchfire (talk) 06:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Do I need to remind you that edit-warring is against the law of the land? And edit-warring is all BRD gets us on these controversial articles. As for recapping, I said DE, not DDDDDDD. We already discussed it. Noleander suggested a change and gained a consensus. The next step is for him to edit. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think he intends to do any editing, his role here was to get people talking to each other and be an umpire if needed, and anybody can edit the article. Now, would you like to discuss changes? What are your proposals? Belchfire (talk) 06:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I think editing would be much smoother if BRD were applied properly. It's supposed to avoid edit wars - it states that if an edit is contested (as indicated by a single revert), no further reverts should be made and the discussion should take place while the page reflects the previous version. Arc de Ciel (talk) 08:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the next step is for someone to create a 3 paragraph version of the lead (intro; ministries; policies) that summarizes the body of the article, per WP:LEAD. For example, the body of the article has a huge section on Ministries, yet the word "ministries" does not appear in the lead of the article. I personally don't plan to edit the article. I recommend that an interested editor create a draft version of the new lead, and place it here in the Talk page (before going into the article) so other editors can comment. --Noleander (talk) 12:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. Belchfire seems eager to provide something, so let's allow him to. Then we can fix it so that it follows the rules. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I've provided something already, and it follows the guidelines perfectly. Feel free to offer any alternative language you would like, and we can go from there. For your convenience, I'll put my proposal right here where it's handy for you.

Focus on the Family (FOTF or FotF) is an American tax-exempt, non-profit organization founded in 1977 by psychologist James Dobson, based in Colorado Springs, Colorado. A component of the Christian right, it is active in promoting interdenominational harmony and works toward its views on socially conservative public policy. Focus on the Family is one of a number of evangelical parachurch organizations that rose to prominence in the 1980s.

Focus on the Family's stated mission is "nurturing and defending the God-ordained institution of the family and promoting biblical truths worldwide." The core promotional activities of the organization include a daily radio broadcast by Dobson and his colleagues, providing free resources and family counseling according to Focus on the Family views, and publishing magazines, videos, and audio recordings. The organization also produces programs for targeted audiences, such as Adventures in Odyssey for children, dramas, and Family Minute with James Dobson. Both Focus on the Family and Adventures in Odyssey are broadcast on Trans World Radio in the UK. Focus on the Family is also currently the primary sponsor for Phil Vischer's JellyTelly.

Several organizations have listed Focus on the Family as an anti-gay group.

Belchfire 02:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to outdent so as to keep this readable. Here goes:

Focus on the Family (FOTF or FotF) is an American tax-exempt, non-profit organization founded in 1977 by psychologist James Dobson, based in Colorado Springs, Colorado. A component of the Christian right, it is active in promoting an interdenominational effort towards its socially conservative views on public policy. Focus on the Family is one of a number of evangelical parachurch organizations that rose to prominence in the 1980s.

Focus on the Family's stated mission is "nurturing and defending the God-ordained institution of the family and promoting biblical truths worldwide." The core promotional activities of the organization include a daily radio broadcast by Dobson and his colleagues, providing free resources and family counseling according to evangelical views, and publishing magazines, videos, and audio recordings. The organization also produces programs for targeted audiences, such as Adventures in Odyssey for children, dramas, and Family Minute with James Dobson. Both Focus on the Family and Adventures in Odyssey are broadcast on Trans World Radio in the UK. Focus on the Family is also currently the primary sponsor for Phil Vischer's JellyTelly.

Focus on the Family opposes abortion, divorce, gambling, gay rights, pornography, pre-marital sex, and recreational drugs. It supports abstinence, adoption by Christians, corporal punishment, creationism, school prayer, strong gender roles, and marriage of Christians only to other Christians.

Call this a rough draft. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Not too rough. We can call your first two paragraphs a done deal - there really isn't any difference. But the last paragraph is simply a laundry list of things cherry-picked from the body of the article, which can be - and should be - summarized with more neutral language, if not eliminated altogether. The lead up to that point already makes it clear that FotF supports a Biblical version of family values. We have the rest of the article to spell out just what that entails.

And incidentally, the source provided in the article doesn't support the proposition that FotF tells Christians only to marry other Christians. (Which is not surprising, since the Bible doesn't say that either, to my knowledge.) That's not in the article any more.

So... in all candor, the lead you've written can easily survive without the third paragraph altogether, since it's just repeating in detail what was already stated in the second sentence. Belchfire 03:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Noleander's outline was "intro; ministries; policies", paralleling the structure of the article itself. That's the reason for the opposes/supports lists; they're the summary of the policies. As such, some version of this does belong as the third paragraph.

I'm not particularly concerned with the item about marrying only other Christians, although it's definitely in the Bible and I'm pretty sure I saw a source confirming that FotF makes a point of endorsing this. For now, we can drop it, but we'll put it back if I find that citation again.

I'd like to flesh out that third paragraph a bit, adding brief summaries of other policy-related items, such as how they use research. I'd like it to sound a little bit less like a laundry list, too. Any ideas? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing: we need to fix the second paragraph to reflect Dobson's departure. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Mmm, I don't think Dobson's exit is that important. What we have now only says Dobson founded it, and gives a date for that which is 35 years in the past. The change in leadership is mentioned in the first section after the TOC, and Daly's name is right there in the Infobox. Trying to work that into the lead is just going to clutter it up, IMO. Belchfire 04:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The second paragraph says that its activities "include a daily radio broadcast by Dobson". That's contradicted later on, so we shouldn't be saying it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

We just need to switch out the names is all. Belchfire 04:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Great, we can list "Jim Daly, Juli Slattery and John Fuller". Now, let's focus on the third paragraph, where we summarize policies. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's go with what we have. A third paragraph isn't needed and will only lead to POV issues. Besides, the summary you are proposing to put in paragraph 3 is just a rehash of things already covered in paragraphs 1 and 2. Let's wrap it up and be done. Belchfire 05:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

1st & 2nd paragraphs proposed are an improvment. Third para not needed. – Lionel 05:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is not acceptable. Noleander's outline requires us to list the policies in the lead and I'm going to have to insist upon that. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Noleander gave us a road map, not a mandate. Going with what we have satisfies WP:MOSINTRO ("This allows editors to avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, since greater detail is saved for the body of the article.") and avoids the persistent POV problems that have plagued this process for nearly a week. Lionel seems to concur. Feel free to bring Noleander back in if you like. Belchfire 05:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Perception

Belchfire, your edit comment reads, "Citation does say otherwise, in FotF's opinion. I think I made that clear". We don't have a citation that says divorce has negative effects on children. All we have is a citation which shows that FotF believes that such effects exists, which is why I politely called it their perception. If you want to cite a study showing that divorce is more harmful than living with parents who don't want to be together, I'll back down and take out the word. Otherwise, you need to revert yourself right this moment. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Check the new citation I added, from FotF's website. "...divorce brings painful wounds..." Belchfire 05:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The citation clearly shows that they perceive negative effects. It does not support the notion of objectively negative effects. Moreover, you need to show FotF citing these effects, rather than bringing in any external sources for synthesis. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a frivolous objection. That's a direct statement from FotF's website that FotF makes without qualification. It's what they say. "Perceived" is a weasel word and an unjustified expression of doubt. Furthermore, inserting "perceived" is editorializing. Belchfire 05:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

FotF is not a reliable source on the effects of divorce, so we can't endorse their views, just report them at arm's length, as by "perceived". Other phrases might also work, such as "what they consider". The alternative is to remove the whole sentence, which is also fine by me. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

FotF is a very reliable source for FotF's opinions on divorce, which is what is being addressed here. If you want the section to be an empirical statement of scientific fact, you have a lot more work cut out for you than just picking apart FotF's own statements about their own position on the topic. Belchfire 06:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

You're conceding my point. As you said, it's merely FotF's opinion that divorce has negative consequences, hence these are perceived, not necessarily actual. Thank you for agreeing with me. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I don't know the answer, but it's a factual question, so it should be easy to find reliable sources for it. Arc de Ciel (talk) 06:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not a dispute over facts, this is a POV problem. See my statement above regarding WP:WEASEL and WP:ALLEGED. The edit attempts to impart a POV not present in the source by overlaying an editorial statement of doubt - a form of OR. At the moment, it matters not - another editor says he intends to re-write the section (see below). Belchfire 06:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Marriage and family

I attempted to make a number of corrections and improvements to the "Marriage and family section", only to have them reverted generally without explanation by Belchfire. In order to avoid warring over them, here's the section as it now stands:

• The primary ministry of Focus on the Family is to strengthen what it considers to be traditional marriages and families, based on an evangelical view of Biblical teachings. As such, it is strongly opposed to same-sex marriage. This is also seen in the published works of James Dobson, who has written a number of books on subjects ranging from raising children to taking steps to prevent divorce by helping couples with conflict management. One key theme of this ministry is emphasizing the negative consequences of divorce on children. The organization maintains a toll-free telephone counseling service available to anyone in a family crisis.

The problems with this (some but not all of which I addressed earlier) are:

• The "As such" is not in the source and is POV.
• "This is also seen", it is unclear what "this" refers to. Is it same-sex marriage? Or is it that their primary ministry is yadda-yadda?
• The use of the name "James Dobson" at this point is against WP:SURNAME; Dobsons first name has already been established
• "a number of books" is needlessly wordy. If we say "books", then we know that there is some number of them.
• "ranging from raising children to taking steps to prevent divorce by helping couples with conflict management" - who says these two topics are the ends of the range? It's unsourced even that the topics include these, much less that they are the ends of the range.
• It is unclear what the Dobson books have to do with the topic of this paragraph, which is the ministry of marriage and family. Are these book's part of Focus's ministry, or just works by the founder which parallel it?
• "One key theme of this ministry is emphasizing the negative consequences of divorce on children." Despite having a reference at the end of it, the primary statement of this (that it's a key theme) is found nowhere in said reference, so it's unsourced and dubious. Also, "emphasizing" would not be a theme, it would be an action; the supposed negative consequences would be the theme. Even the series of articles linked to does not emphasize the negative effects so much as emphasize how you can help children in the divorce situation.
• "The organization maintains a toll-free telephone counseling service available to anyone in a family crisis." First off, it is not true that the toll-free service this is available to "anyone", as most of the world cannot reach a US 800 number toll-free. Second, this is not reliably sourced; the reference is to an ad page for the service. Is it really centrally a counseling service, or is that just a way to get people set up for referrals? That's the sort of information we cannot count on from a first-person source like this.
• Furthermore, I question whether they really do "maintain" this service. The page is from 2006, and with a bit of poking around in a couple different methods, I'm not finding any other page of the site that actually links to it. This could well be an old, dead phantom page for a service years gone.

I haven't taken as close a look at some of the other sections, but this one clearly is in needed of improvement and/or reduction. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Your changes got caught up in an edit conflict - evidently a three-way edit conflict, as Still was also working on the section at around that same time and I see that we have successive edits to that section at 21:27, 21:28 and 21:30 (my time). My apologies, clearly I didn't check carefully enough to see who was doing what and since your edit was only (-3) bytes I assumed it was a minor. Feel free to implement your edits. Belchfire 06:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. I've really stripped it down. I was going to include that they sell certain materials, but found that their sales links went to a "partner" page on christianbook.com, so I'm not certain that them selling is even a good descriptor. As for the counseling hotline, it looks like I was right hat that page was at least outdated; active pages indicate that phone number is a general contact number for FotF, and is also for what they call their "family help" line, with a separate number being one where you can "arrange to speak with a licensed counselor"... and that phrasing suggests to me that it is a referral service. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Good catch on the thing with the toll-free number. When I get time I may build this section back up a little from fresher sources... or not, since what's there now is at least minimally sufficient. Belchfire 17:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Recreational drugs

This may seem like a small item, but it's important and I don't want to edit war over it. I do not see where Focus on the Family uses the term "recreational drugs". There is nothing recreational about illegal drug use or abuse of legal drugs. It diminishes the seriousness of the issue and is not the term used among organizations like this. I think "drug abuse" is basically what the organization is against and that is the terminology I propose. 72Dino (talk) 02:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone supports drug abuse. As I explained, legality really isn't the issue, since the question is often whether it should be legal, and FotF opposes these drugs even when they are legal. The term "recreational drugs" is meant to be neutral, not lighthearted. It refers to drugs used for non-medical purposes. Take a look a Recreational drug use and you'll see. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I have read the article. If you can show me where Focus on the Family uses the term, I will concede. Otherwise, recreational drug use = drug abuse for most religious organizations, and drug abuse is, in my opinion, a more correct term. 72Dino (talk) 02:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Even if FotF is convinced that all recreational drug use is drug abuse, that doesn't mean we get to endorse that view. Drug abuse is, by definition, negative. The people who want to legalize marijuana (and this appears to be a clear majority of the USA) would never say they support drug abuse. But it's clear that they support recreational drugs, which makes it a neutral term. To be quite frank, I just don't see a better way of expressing it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The FOTF did not say they were against "recreational drug use", they are against "drug abuse" per Belchfire's edit below. We should use their terminology to describe their position, not the terminology and interpretation of one WP editor. 72Dino (talk) 02:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

"We should use their terminology." Now where have I heard that before? Belchfire-TALK 02:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Gotta go with the best available source on this one. FotF says "drug abuse". Somebody who wants to show that FotF (or any Christian organization) draws a distinction between legal and illegal, has their work cut out for them. ALL use of intoxicants is seen as "drug abuse". There is no "recreational" use that fits their principles. Belchfire-TALK 02:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you again for supporting my argument. What they call drug abuse is what is neutrally termed recreational drug use. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

If they state they are against drug abuse, that's what should be put in the article. 72Dino (talk) 03:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but WP:NPOV prevents us from doing that, as it would require Misplaced Pages to agree with their apparent claim that all recreational use is abuse. There is no reliable source for such a thing, which would lead us to violate WP:RS. Really, "recreation drugs" is very neutral and supported. I don't see any better alternative. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is to go with the wording from the source: "drug abuse" Case closed. Belchfire-TALK 03:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have no authority to declare any such thing. Instead of listening to you, I'll listen to WP:NPOV and WP:RS. If you don't like it, go complain on the content dispute resolution page. I'm confident your view will be rejected. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

That is your description rather than that of FOTF. It is not up to you to interpret their statements of their position. 72Dino (talk) 03:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not my view, it's the view of reliable sources. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Change.org is not a reliable source so I didn't bother looking at that. The Denver Post is an RS, but I see no mention of drugs in that article. 72Dino (talk) 04:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

You don't see it because... wait for it... there is no mention of drugs in that article. He doesn't have a source, he's just engaging in vexation tactics, for what reason, we can only guess. It's not necessary to trouble yourself - as I pointed out a while ago, we already have consensus and the only reason the article hasn't been updated is that I've already done my share of reversions for the time being. Ignore the nonsense about "not having authority". Belchfire-TALK 04:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec)The Los Angeles Times states the FOTF handles "problems of chemical substance abuse", which is also an acceptable term. 72Dino (talk) 04:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I would also be OK with "substance abuse", if you feel that is appropriate. In fact, it might be even better. Just so we avoid the qualifier "recreational", which we both find problematic. Belchfire-TALK 04:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Same problem: nobody supports abuse. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

It matters because that makes it a biased description. It's not that FotF opposes abuse, since everyone does, it's that is opposes recreational use on the non-objective basis that all use is abuse. This means that following their bias would violate WP:NPOV. That's why the LA Times was careful to attribute the drug abuse idea as "according to Dobson". Of course, if I were to phrase it as "what it considers drug abuse", I fully expect that Belchfire would launch into an edit war against "weasel words". Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

It is the description from the organization and a reliable source. You may not add your own original research and interpretation of the sources. Either it should be removed or use the term used by those sources. Do you want yet another DRN on this article? 72Dino (talk) 05:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

No, actually, it's not. This isn't complicated: there is no RS for FotF being against actual drug abuse. There are many RS for FotF being against recreational drug use on the basis of considering it to be abuse. That's why the LA Times was so careful in its phrasing, and why we must do the same. If you can't handle this and want a DRN, go for it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

If that's the remaining counter-argument - that nobody supports substance abuse - then we have a winner, and "substance abuse" is our term of choice. The counter-argument fails ab initio because MANY people and organizations support the abuse of illegal substances. Belchfire-TALK 04:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

You keep speaking for yourself as if you speak for others. Why? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The sources presented make a strong case for "substance abuse" or similiar. I agree with Belch's and 72Dino's well reasoned argument. – Lionel 06:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPOV does not permit use to equate drug use with drug abuse. This is not negotiable. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

While the initial assumption of this discussion that there's nothing recreational about the use of illegal use of drugs is wrong (plenty of things are a bad idea and dangerous and are nonetheless done for recreation), it's also improper to cast all that's commonly viewed as drug abuse as recreational. The baseball player pumped on steroids or the long-haul truck driver using uppers to keep going is not being recreational. The woman who starts taking painkillers for legitimate pain and then has withdrawal symptoms whenever she tries to stop is not being recreational. I don't see anyone putting forth a source indicating that FotF separates out the recreational subset of drug use. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The result of dispute resolution is that the following options were generated:

1. "recreational drug use"
2. "excessive drug use"
3. "what they consider to be drug abuse"

That's roughly my own order of preference, but all three are WP:NPOV, unlike "drug abuse". Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 00:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Bogus citation.... again.

Change.org reported that Crowther, a student at Western Washington University, gathered more than 20,000 online signatures — compelling Apple Inc. to recently remove iTunes from the CGBG network because it enables customers to donate to Focus and its affiliate, the Family Research Council. The ministry and the lobby group oppose gay marriage and also counsel that being gay is a disorder partly attributable to poor parenting.

To be sure, FotF is opposed by gay rights groups. But it is a failure of logic to say that means the enmity goes both ways, and there is absolutely nothing in this article that says FotF opposes anything more that gay marriage. Belchfire-TALK 02:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The unoriginal synthesis being applied by our reliable sources is that opposition to same-sex marriage necessarily means opposition to gay rights, as marriage is one such right. Let's stick with our sources on this one. It also helps that FotF explicitly targets "homosexual rights", as in the citation I included. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

No. That's not what it says. No worries, somebody else will come along and correct it. Belchfire-TALK 03:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't seem likely, because you're mistaken. Here's what FotF says:

The "homosexual rights" ideology continues to seek legitimization – not just tolerance – of homosexual behavior, resulting in changing societal mores and values that deeply impact Americans in their day-to-day relationships with family members, neighbors and co-workers.

And they say this as part of an attack on these rights. So, in plain English, they openly oppose gay rights. This is in addition to the secondary sources we have, which support the same conclusion.

Honestly, I have no idea why you're trying so hard to hide the fact that they're opposed to gay rights. They're proud of being opposed to gay rights! Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

That's your personal opinion. Thanks for acknowledging that you are POV-pushing. ViriiK (talk) 07:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it's their stated reason for existence. Read their web site. But, no, instead you have to attack me personally while edit-warring. How is that productive? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I read the website. I see the same thing Belchfire pointed out. So where's this you're getting this information from? Oh, right you're making it up. ViriiK (talk) 07:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, no, you couldn't possibly have read the web site and come away thinking that they're not anti-gay. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

You're becoming more of a disruptive editor here at Misplaced Pages throwing around accusations of edit-warring like candy. ViriiK (talk) 07:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you have anything productive to add here, or just personal attacks? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

No, do you? I read the website, it's not there, and that's it. I cannot use my own personal bias to come away with a conclusion nor can I use original thoughts to imply that the message is there. Are you done? Any more accusations? Please do let me know of any more "edit-warring". It's fun to see coming from you. ViriiK (talk) 07:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I've been talking about the primary source web site rather than focusing on your bad behavior. But, no, it cannot be the case that you read through the site without coming away with the clear understanding that they're anti-gay. This isn't subtle, it's not controversial. It's one of their main reasons for existing as an organization. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

You still have not proven to me this "source" you are talking about. Where is this that you are finding where they explicitly state that they are anti-gay other than from you? Please, do link us to the entire world where you are finding this statement. ViriiK (talk) 07:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

They explicitly oppose all aspects of gay rights, and they're not bashful about it. In http://www.focusonthefamily.com/socialissues/social-issues/progay-revisionist-theology.aspx, they target what they call "'homosexual rights' ideology" and proceed to oppose it. Due to this, secondary sources are quite comfortable calling them anti-gay, and so should we be when we use these secondary sources. There's a nice summary at http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/focus-family which minces no words about this, and there are also more neutral sources that take it for granted that opposing same-sex marriage is inherently anti-gay. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm reading that and I don't see this anti-gay anywhere. Now that's an overview page highlighting the 4 points of what they're going to discuss which more is explained in the same series of pages. Surely you do know what overview means, right? I can give you a link . As for rightwingwatch under the rules of WP:RELIABLE & WP:NPOV since the link is obvious, I'm not going to bother reading that site since that's not my concern. Why? I'm not going to let them influence what they interpret for me. ViriiK (talk) 07:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to comment on the reasons for your inability to understand the content of the site. Instead, I'll remind you that rightwingwatch.org is used as a reliable source for many articles, and with care, it can be used as one here. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The FOTF page expresses criticism of homosexual rights ideology. To describe that as "anti-gay" is WP:OR, and rightwingwatch is not reliable.– Lionel 08:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but are you claiming that they oppose gay rights as an ideology but don't oppose gay rights in public policy, such as same-sex marriage? I think you need to reconsider your claims. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

1. "Helping Children Heal After Divorce". Focus on the Family. 2009. Retrieved July 26, 2012.
2. "Counseling Services and Referrals". Focus on the Family. 2006. Retrieved July 26, 2012.