Talk:Focus on the Family

Misrepresented vs. accused of misrepresenting

Editor 80.131.113.189 (talk · contribs) has asserted that this edit is needed for neutrality. I, and at least one other editor, disagree. I invite the IP to discuss their reasoning here. - MrX 17:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The article does not show that FOTF has often misrepresented research. A few discussed single incidents cannot lead to such a conclusion presented as a matter of fact. 80.131.113.189 (talk) 03:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you arguing that the author of a study is not a reliable source as to its actual content, or that at least seven separate scientists calling FOTF out on it aren't enough? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

These sources were mentioned to cover those single incidents, not the critical statement we talk about. It is not clarified that FOTF has often misrepresented research in order to bolster its own perspective. -80.131.113.189 (talk) 04:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

But that's not what your edit did. If you think we should avoid making a general statement, you should suggest wording that reduces generalization, instead of inserting wording that converts a fact into an opinion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Moreover, a polemicist such as Wayne Besen writing in gay rights newspapers isn't a reliable source for factual information. I notice that he's used here a couple of times. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

There's no question that the FOTF often misrepresented research. MilesMoney (talk) 06:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

All of the resources are stated in the form of an accusation of misrepresentation. This is a clear example of WP:YESPOV WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:NPOV. This is a core pillar which must be upheld. It doesn't really matter if you think that there is "no question that the FOTF often misrepresented research". It really doesn't matter what you think about it. Arzel (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Evidently, several editors disagree with you, so now is an opportunity for you to convince enough of us to establish a new consensus. - MrX 19:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

...or, I guess you could just edit war and hope that that works. - MrX 19:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It's true that there have been accusations. However, it's also true that the accusations are true. Why are we shy about saying it? MilesMoney (talk) 03:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:TRUTH We are not here to right wrongs. The authors claim they are being misrepresented, it is not for WP to validate that claim. It is simply for us to state that claim. Arzel (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Wayne Besen as a source for facts rather than as a source for his opinion

Before continuing the debate over "misrepresented research" versus "accused of misrepresenting research," perhaps we should tackle the problem of using gay rights activist and anti-Focus on the Family polemicist Wayne Besen as an RS for FACTS about Focus on the Family. Let's do the easy stuff first. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Fine, but his bio states that he us a journalist. What evidence can you present that he is a polemicist, and if so, how does that precludes him from presenting facts about FotF or any other organization. - MrX 20:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Ummh, his Wiki bio describes him as a former journalist. If you want evidence that he is now primarily a polemicist, and an anti-FOTF polemicist at that (of course, there's nothing wrong with being a polemicist, except we try to avoid using them as sources for facts in Wikipedia) just read his two columns currently being used as "reliable sources" here. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC) PS: I remember when Jerry Kammer, a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter, was barred from being used as a "reliable source" (and not just for facts but for opinions too) for the article on the Southern Poverty Law Center because he was currently working for the Center for Immigration Reform which the SPLC had named a hate group.

I think a more reasonable position would be to evaluate the credibility of the publications, rather than the attitude or motives of the journalist/activist who wrote the articles. The San Francisco Bay Times is probably not a particularly reliable source, as far as I can tell. PR Newswire certainly is not. I would not object to these sources being removed from the article, but other editors might disagree. - MrX 00:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The Besen pieces fail Wikipedia's standards for being reliable sources for facts on a variety of grounds. One is a blog entry in an anti-FOTC website (TruthWinsOut) run by Besen himself, the other is an opinion column in a gay rights newspaper. Narrativesuch as "Dobson's group is a fib factory that should change its name to Focus on Fallacies" and "bearing false witness is his (James Dobson's) modus operandi" puts these articles in the political polemic category. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Overstatement of FOTC's Opposition to LGBT adoption

NO, we don't need to overstate the organization's opposition to LGBT adoption by stating it THREE TIMES in the lead. If Focus on the Family opposes LGBT rights in general, then it would presumably oppose LGBT adoption specifically. To make this crystal clear we might also say that it supported "non-LGBT" adoption as I did in my recent edit; but saying that it opposes LGBT rights, opposes LGBT adoption, and supports non-LGBT adoption is gratuitously redundant. Hope this helps. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I removed "non-LGBT adoption". I think it's OK to keep LGBT rights and LGBT adoption though. There are other overlaps in the lede, but I find them more helpful than harmful. - MrX 20:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but whoever initially made the edit that FOTF supported adoption may have done so because FOTC puts a significant emphasis on adoption as an alternative to abortion. Leaving out any positive support for adoption and saying instead that it "opposes LGBT rights" and "opposes LGBT adoption" loses the notion that it advocates adoption in any positive way. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC) PS: BTW Why are we going out of our way to include sources such as an article entitled "Focus On The Family's Most Pathetic Argument for Opposing Same-Sex Adoption" for facts about FOTF? Badmintonhist (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/03/09/439796/focus-on-the-familys-most-pathetic-argument-against-same-sex-adoption/ isn't neutral, but it's reliable, particularly for the purpose of being a secondary source to point to the primary. MilesMoney (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

My point was that we shouldn't be "going out of our way" to use a source such as ThinkProgress for factual info about FOTC if other more neutral sources are available. As for my major point above, Focus on the Family not only emphasizes adoption in its literature but works practically to facilitate it. See [1]. This should be reflected in our lead. Badmintonhist (talk) 14:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree we should avoid ThinkProgress whenever possible. I have taken a stab at rewording. Feel free to jump in at any time. - MrX 18:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I removed TP as it is highly biased opinion and cannot be used for factual statements. I added a link to their own stated mission, which is fine for this section. Also, they do not support non-married couples, so there is no reason to focus on the LGBT angle. I simply stated that they support Married Mother/Father adoption as this is what they state. Arzel (talk) 19:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Nice try Arzel, but I don't think that was an improvement. Please don't use my willingness to compromise on wording as an opportunity to whitewash the article. FotF is well-known for their opposition to all that is LGBT. - MrX 19:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't give me that whitewash crap. If en editor is unable to understand the Married Mother-Father excludes the LGBT population than that is on them. My edit stated what their position is, and if we are going to make it a factual statement than I don't see any reason to not use their own words. Why must you use WP for promote a point of view? Arzel (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

That is some real doubleplusgood newspeak that you jammed into the article. As usually, you edit war to force your point of view instead of making cogent arguments. - MrX 19:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

And to you, when you have no logical argument you resort to personal attacks. Arzel (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Wherever possible, Wikipedia articles should be based on independent, reliable third-party sources rather than primary sources directly affiliated with the article subject. Thus, reliable third-party descriptions of FotF's agenda are more useful than the organization's website here. I don't think there's any serious question that FotF vocally opposes LGBT adoption; numerous reliable sources attest to that fact, so we should convey it clearly. MastCell ^Talk 20:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I've been participating in this discussion and making measured adjustments to the lede based on comments from @Badmintonhist: and @MilesMoney:. The WP:STATUSQUO version of the lede included prominent references to FotF's opposition to LGBT-adoption. There are numerous sources that support the status quo, for example:

• "But Focus on the Family, a Christian ministry that is dedicated to helping parents raise children according to Biblical principles, said the push to legalize same-sex adoption has a "fundamental flaw." " or
• "Religious advocacy groups such as Focus on the Family encourage families to adopt, saying the Bible mandates giving children loving homes, but they consider adoption by same-sex parents to be a politically motivated effort that's not in children's best interests."
• and this

and the two that you removed from the article and replaced with a PRIMARY source. Your first revert was a reasonable objection, but then you should have respected WP:BRD and used discussion to make your case. - MrX 20:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with MrX here. This edit misses the point. FotF doesn't just "promote adoption by married opposite-sex parents". It actively opposes adoption by anyone else. Much of its advocacy is negative, in vocally opposing adoption by anyone except for married, heterosexual couples. That much is evident from independent reliable sources, but the wording by Badmintonhist and Arzel fails to convey it. MastCell ^Talk 21:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Geez!! As of this writing the lead says that FOTC "opposes LGBT rights" and that it promotes "adoption by married, opposite-sex parents." I'd say that this is pretty much true with duly weighted emphasis and that our friend MastCell is looking for overkill here. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

We need to go back to the pre-Arzel version, and possibly the version before my edits. Badmintonhist, your edits went considerably further than your previous comments hinted. Promoting "adoption by married, opposite-sex parents" is not what our sources say, as I have demonstrated with abundant evidence. - MrX 22:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I support this latest revision by Badmintonhist [2]. It removes some of the soapboxing that was in the article before. 97.113.5.118 (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, 97. Okay. Reliable sources say that FOTC promotes precisely what kind(s) of adoption? I really don't know what you're driving at here, X? As for MastCell, would you be happier if we said that FOTC "actively opposes LGBT rights"? Badmintonhist (talk) 22:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know you do Belchfire. You could be a little more subtle about it though. - MrX 23:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Badmintonhist, I'm about to stop assuming good faith where your concerned. Read the sources that I provided for your convenience. There is no justification for turning this article into a puff piece for FotF.- MrX 23:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Your sources, X, say that the FOTC opposes LGBT adoption. Surprise, surprise! OUR ARTICLE, however, is not an article on LGBT adoption or on the FOTC's efforts against LGBT adoption. It is an article on Focus on the Family in general. Why should we be emphasizing FOTC's position on LGBT adoption in the lead any more than its position on any other major LGBT issue (same-sex marriage, for example)? Again, the lead as I left it says that FOTC opposes (I'd even go for actively opposes) LGBT rights and that it promotes adoption by married, opposite sex couples. That is PLENTY enough to tell the reader that it strongly opposes LGBT adoption. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

promotes adoption by evangelicals. -Nat Gertler (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The article should reflect our sources proportionally. FotF is notable largely because of their vocal stance on LGBT issues. I flatly disagree that "opposes LGBT rights" is "...PLENTY enough to tell the reader that it strongly opposes LGBT adoption." If for no other reason than you previously argued against the all encompassing concept of LGBT rights. Feel free to dig back into the archives to refresh your memory.

The lede should state it clearly, as it did before. Also, we should not list everything under the sun that they promote or oppose, but only the things that they are renowned for promoting or opposing. Given the stated objections to your and Arzel's bold edits, the equitable approach would be to roll back to a previous version and then work toward consensus on changes. - MrX 23:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I flatly disagree that FOTF's notability is linked to LGBT issues. They were a nationally known organization long before gay marriage was ever discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.5.118 (talk) 00:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The FOTF was notably against all things LGBT long before marriage was at issue. MilesMoney (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the current wording in question is fine. Of course, I ought to, it's mine. However to bend over backward for certain colleagues, how about something like It opposes abortion; divorce; gambling; LGBT rights, particularly LGBT adoption and same-sex marriage; pornography, pre-marital sex, and substance abuse." Badmintonhist (talk) 00:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, since you're bending over backwards I guess I could grudgingly live with that wording. - MrX 00:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

When I get up from the ridiculous position I'm in I'll change it, or perhaps someone can kindly do it for me. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with the new wording because it reintroduces the redundancy that we just got rid of. It's ridiculous to string together 3 separate mentions of LGBT issues in the same sentence when the first item encompasses the next two. It's undue weight, and nobody has demonstrated with sourcing that it's warranted. 97.113.5.118 (talk) 02:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree as well. There is no reason to support the activist version. It is really tiring to have activist with an axe to grind against a specific group come to WP to push their point of view. The version I had was neutral and reliably sourced and true. This group did not single out the LGBT group in its stance on adoption. They made a clear statement supporting traditional marriage families, that the LGBT community wants to make this about them is on them. Arzel (talk) 03:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)