Talk:World Congress of Families

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Neutrality[edit]

The article contains the line

The World Congress of Families is a worldwide coalition that stands up for the position of the family, in a time of eroding family life and declining appreciation for families in general.

written in such a way that it seems to be a statement of fact. I wouldn't be surprised if it's copied directly from the group's site or other media. I'm not sure of the best way to fix it, though. --67.175.53.13 (talk) 00:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I've changed it to make it a bit more neutral.Veritas Omnia Vincit (talk) 08:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Controversy[edit]

There were already several citations alluding to the controversy surrounding this group, but no explanation as to the source of that controversy. I've attempted to highlight some of the roots of that controversy, while maintaining a neutral tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.184.9 (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality[edit]

This wikipedia page has been written with an over dependence on appeal to unproven authority of truth, from liberal homosexual lifestyle propogation advocates to present a discrimatory bias against the pro family group which the article is about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.86.33 (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I just reverted a series of edits which seriously compromised the neutrality of this article. I am not sure it is neutral in its present form, either, but the new additions were beyond the pale and cannot be tolerated on Wikipedia. Warnings have been issued. Elizium23 (talk) 02:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Those were all sourced additions. If you feel any were beyond the pale let's work them out instead of restoring a very non-neutral version as you have done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masioka (talkcontribs) 02:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC) Masioka (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Unacceptable additions, all of them, each and every one. Revert the whole thing and start over again with a NEUTRAL tone. You have turned this into an attack page. Elizium23 (talk) 02:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • That's what we have the talk page for. I have removed your speedy deletion template and unblanked the content: it has to be real bad to warrant deletion as an attack page. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
It is hardly an attack page. WCF is best known for their politics which are anti-gay, they are some of the leading force behind the kill the gays legislation in Uganda, and the anti-gay propaganda movement in Russia. They are a professional hate-group facilitator. That is not my assessment but from researchers who specialize in these areas. This page was all but an advertisement for them before which is dishonest. Masioka — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masioka (talkcontribs) 03:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC) Masioka (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Although I have no problem calling the WCF a hate group, I think the lead didn't need to include so much criticism of the group. I moved that material into the Criticism section and replaced it in the lead with a more general statement that the group's views are controversial. I hope that's an acceptable solution. Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's proper. Drmies (talk) 04:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
The article is starting to look better under the care of myself and Aristophanes, but Masioka has commenced an edit war over a BuzzFeed source. It's not WP:RS. Remove it. Elizium23 (talk) 04:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't see much of an edit war, but I have warned Masioka about removing the POV tag. Drmies (talk) 04:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure how reliable BuzzFeed is, but most of those stories could be found in other more traditionally reliable sources anyway. Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Buzzfeed is reliable. I didn't remove the POV tag. Masioka — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masioka (talkcontribs) 05:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC) Masioka (talk) 05:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Masioka (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Buzzfeed isn't needed as a source - there are plenty of RS sources like the 2007 AP article "The chief organizer is a Rockford, Illinois-based conservative think tank, the Howard Center. Co-sponsors include more than 20 other U.S. groups allied in opposition to abortion, gay marriage and other policies they blame for weakening traditional families in Western Europe" AP 2013 - "Past conferences in Europe, Mexico and Australia have brought together opponents of abortion and same-sex marriage from dozens of countries" -- Aronzak (talk) 15:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm also a little nervous about tagging articles by LGBTQ news sites with the verifiability tag. Yes, they're invested in covering the stories from a pro-gay/trans perspective, but automatically tagging them as questionable also seems a little bit biased against LGBTQ folk as well. They're going to cover things that the mainstream press won't (if only because of their niche audience), and to question their reliability just because they're not neutral seems a bit insulting to queer folks. Aristophanes68 (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
That is not why I tagged it. Looking at the website as a whole, I became skeptical of editorial oversight and reputation for fact-checking. Admittedly my feelings are not based on anything concrete. I can't find anything at all on WP:RSN regarding this site; I would not object to removal of the tag if Aristophanes68 sees fit to do so. Elizium23 (talk) 14:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Gotcha -- thanks for clarifying. Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
It's fairly obvious that the vast majority of my contributions have been kept despite Elizium's insistence that they don't belong. And now, only after Aristophanes68's efforts is Elizium seem willing to accept another's input that indeed these sources are perfectly reliable. I don't see the content changing even if the most reliable Australian mainstream news journals were impressed upon the matter. WCF should be credited for being hugely influential in spreading anti-LGBT hate in Eastern Europe and Africa, hopefully no one will stand in the way of that sourced content. Masioka (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Masioka (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I feel, as does Aristophanes that it is not useful to include the SPLC designation in the lede section. I have therefore restored the {{POV}} tag on this article and demand that discussion and consensus ensue here on the talk page regarding the inclusion. We can go on at length about the bias and aggressiveness of SPLC, and discussions have already been held on that, but I can refer you if need be. Personally I feel that the SPLC is the hate group. However I fully support documentation of their positions and reactions in the article, I will not keep any of that out, I just want to ensure that it is treated neutrally and with due prominence. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
SPLC as the hate group? Where have I heard that from? Yes, other hate groups, and the extreme Christian right. Likely as the sole defense against their research that shows the activities of these groups over many years and throughout the world. The only reason to not include that they are a hate group in the lead is to mislead the public about what this so-called Christian group really does. Masioka (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Honestly, you can save your bile. Have you read the only article you're editing? It's not merely a Christian group! So spread your hate around to Jews and Muslims and secular scholars. Actually save your hate altogether, because while we can tolerate it on the talk page, it is not tolerated in articles, and you will soon be blocked for attempting to push an agenda in Wikipedia's voice. Elizium23 (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I think there is a question about whether WP as a whole should consider SPLC a reliable source in the sense of being neutral. They are clearly important, and I generally agree with them, but then a lot of groups I agree with have been pegged as non-reliable. That being said, I doubt people are tagging FOX News reports as being unreliable..... Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I oppose this edit which removed a self-description of the group in the lede. Masioka seems intent to make the lede an attack paragraph if the whole article cannot be hijacked in that way. This was added by Esoglou in order to restore balance. We don't allow orgs to self-identify now? Elizium23 (talk) 00:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm in the middle on that edit. I'm okay with stating the group's self-description as it was phrased in the deleted passage, but I'm also okay with stating that they oppose gay rights without having to say "some people say...." Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
As I commented above, the AP isn't a partisan group - 2007 AP article "The chief organizer is a Rockford, Illinois-based conservative think tank, the Howard Center. Co-sponsors include more than 20 other U.S. groups allied in opposition to abortion, gay marriage and other policies they blame for weakening traditional families in Western Europe" AP 2013 - "Past conferences in Europe, Mexico and Australia have brought together opponents of abortion and same-sex marriage from dozens of countries" 2014 AP article "A U.S.-based conservative group that supports Russia's efforts to curtail gay rights and abortion" -- Aronzak (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I've removed Masioka's latest edit as it was in violation of WP:UNDUE, a large section given over to discussion of a minor episode and dwarfing the rest of the article. Elizium23 (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Like all the other deletions and removals, and attempts to delete the entire article I expect the content will be kept and expanded on. Many other editors are here and divisive and coercive actions have more people looking at them. That "incident" was hardly minor as it was the foundation of the entire Russian movement to ban LGBT propaganda. WCF role in spreading hate from Christian America to the rest of the world is an important story that should be told, not edited away. Masioka (talk) 10:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


Hate group[edit]

A direct quote about World Congress of Families fine work: The World Congress of Families serves as a vessel to bring worldwide hate groups together, as one can see from perusing the sponsors for their international events. The Religious Right has lost the culture war in the United States, and they realized over the past decade that they would have to expand internationally in order to keep their pocketbooks solvent and their ideology relevant. They prey on nations mired in institutional poverty, and they aid foreign governments who find scapegoats that distract their citizens from turning a keen eye on their leaders’ role in their plights quite handy.

They should not hide their light under any bushel but let the whole world see their work in action. Masioka (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I will tell you what, let's make a deal. If you can find 2-3 reliable secondary sources, that is sources such as news outlets with a history of editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking, and these sources directly mention SPLC's categorization of WFC, then you can keep it in the lede. Right now the only sources you have are SPLC's own - that is, there is no proven coverage by reliable sources, and so the standard set by WP:DUE is not met. Elizium23 (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
As much as I agree that WFC are a hate group, I think putting that info in the lead does make it seem that the article is non-neutral. HOWEVER, I do notice that the leads of Family Research Council and American Family Association include the SPLC hate-group designation, so there is precedent. Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not interested in crafting deals to see what one person thinks should be censored out. You have tried to keep all of this information out, then tried to delete the entire article. Now you are trying to keep what is patently obvious to reporters out of the article or at least buried as far down as possible. The most noteworthy thing about this group is that they are extremely successful at exporting their hate against LGBT people. We should give credit where it is due. Masioka (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
There is ample precedent for a. accepting the SPLC's categorization and b. citing such a designation in the lead. I don't know where I came across this the last time--perhaps Binksternet knows: Bink, I think you've been involved in such articles and perhaps you can shine a light over this bushel as well. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Like I said above, the AFA and FRC both mention it in the lead, and neither of those pages has an NPOV tag. Aristophanes68 (talk) 19:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
There has been a lot of discussion about SPLC listings in the past, and the general consensus has been to include them, but not in the lead. StAnselm (talk) 12:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC) Actually, looking at previous debates again, that's not the case. In some articles there was no consensus to include it in the lead; in most there was. So it needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis. With the World Congress of Families, I would have thought that condemnation by the Australian Senate is a more significant thing that inclusion on the SPLC list. StAnselm (talk) 13:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. If it's really on a case-by-case basis, and if FRC and AFA are part of the WFC partnership (they appear prominently on the WFC homepage), then I vote that we restore the SPLC listing to the lead, since FRC and AFA articles also include it in the lead. The Australia info should also go in the lead. Aristophanes68 (talk) 16:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty easy to find sources that mention this. [1][2][3][4][5]Roscelese (talkcontribs) 22:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Masioka, meet Roscelese. We have so much in common, including many Wikipedia articles. We also both tried to delete this article; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Congress of Families. Elizium23 (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not too concerned with what took place in a 2012 discussion unless nothing had change. Their "family" events are being protested by a wide range of groups because they are the most fringe people calling themselves Christian, and causing real world deaths and attacks against LGBT people. That they formed specifically to counter gay marriage rather speaks for itself. Masioka (talk) 02:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


Tag removed[edit]

I have removed the {{POV}} tag because the article is looking a lot better. Given the number of eyes and attention this page now has, in small part thanks to an ANI thread started against me, I feel that any further concerns can be reasonably hashed out here on the talk page by all interested editors. Elizium23 (talk) 15:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

EXPOSED: The World Congress of Families: An American Organization Exporting Hate[edit]

http://hrc-assets.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com//files/assets/resources/ExposedTheWorldCongressOfFamilies.pdf

Part of the Executive Summary:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The World Congress of Families (WCF) is one of the most influential American organizations involved in the export of hate. Since 1997, WCF has held conferences and events around the world that foster homophobia

and transphobia under the guise of protecting the “natural family.” It is connected to some mainstream conservative organizations and to the very highest levels of government in the countries where it operates.

Thanks to WCF’s connections, its rhetoric and its willingness to associate with and encourage radically homophobic and transphobic activists, the group has had an outsized influence on anti-LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) sentiment and legislation in many places. This report explores WCF’s influence in more depth, focusing on Russia — where the organization had its genesis — as well as Eastern Europe, Australia and Africa.

Masioka (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Is HRC considered a reliable source for controversies like this one? I'm fine with them, but some folks might think they're too non-neutral to be reliable in a case like this. Aristophanes68 (talk) 19:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Please make sure you all read the source given by Marioka in full. It's a frothing-at-the-mouth diatribe and about as far from neutral as a KKK biography of Martin Luther King. Tigerboy1966  19:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
The word "EXPOSED" is frequently a giveaway. However, a source doesn't have to be unbiased itself, as long as we treat/include in an unbiased way. This, I wouldn't cite in the lead, though I wouldn't mind using it in the main text or adding it as an external link. Drmies (talk) 19:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Fair point. It could be used but would need careful handling. For example, "the LGBT advocacy group HRC have described the WCF as...".20:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)20:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC) Tigerboy1966  20:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm still trying to find the "frothing-at-the-mouth" part of the HRC report.... Aristophanes68 (talk) 03:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Alex Greenwich included the report as part of his submission to get government members to pull out of the 2014 Melbourne conference, and I believe that's part of why the Australian Senate condemned the conference. -- Aronzak (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

This is one of the most credible and authoritative exposes of the WCF, that it comes from the part of society that the WCF targets for their bile is not surprising. Does anyone dispute anything in this report? Masioka (talk) 02:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Tigerboy thinks it's "frothing at the mouth diatribe", so apparently some folks do dispute the report. I don't see any glaring problems with it (no frothing, for instance), so I'm okay with using it, but without non-lgbt sources backing up the HRC data, we need to refer to the info as LGBT-based criticism and not let it stand simply as factual (even if it is, in fact, all true). Aristophanes68 (talk) 03:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Thank you for replying. I'm not convince that tainting the source is needed or even helpful especially without any evidence that anything presented is so biased or even untrue. It does help explain many of the facets of this very effective organization which has many of its key members in other hate groups like C-FAM. They are also tied to other disreputable groups that have disbanded and reformed under new names. WCF is purposely trying to present a unified religious front for their views which is a newer development for the Christian right. Masioka (talk) 03:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Source with content about the origins of the WCF, ties to Russian anti-LGBT laws[edit]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/02/world-congress-families-russia-gay-rights

It's not an LGBT source so I hope this one doesn't need to be questioned like all the LGBT-related ones, which all remain tagged as possibly unreliable with no one questioning a single fact used from them. Masioka (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Masioka (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

At my count, there are currently two sources in the article tagged as possibly unreliable. BuzzFeed and LGBTQNation. As discussed above, I have no problem with Aristophanes68, or anyone but Masioka, removing the tag if they feel LGBTQN is indeed reliable enough for those assertions made. As for BuzzFeed, I stand by my position that it is unreliable, and I am curious why you believe it to be an LGBT-related source? Elizium23 (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I can only guess at why you've been trying to eliminate and suppress this well-sourced information. It really doesn't matter. As long as you agree "anyone but" me can remove these tags it's fairly obvious the only reason you want them there is because I added them. Maybe someone else will be kind enough to remove them as they imply the information is not true on some level. Even you no longer seem to suggest that. As for them being LGBT I had only noticed that all the LGBT-related sources were tagged, my error. Masioka (talk) 00:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
LGBTQ Nation is clearly an advocacy organisation at odds with the WCF and it's reliability should be treated in that way. As far as Buzzfeed as a reliable source, I'm uneasy but I'd suggest that this goes to the Reliable Sources noticeboard. JASpencer (talk) 06:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Other editors have helped get the content preserved for now with the criticisms intact. Nothing about any of these sources' reporting has actually been questioned, only that they might be biased in a non-pro-WCF way. Meanwhile we're happy to use WCF press office's work littered across the www as proof. This article is woefully imbalanced presenting this fringe hate group as a family oriented NGO. We may not be able to stop hate speech but we can sure label it as such. Masioka (talk) 02:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Which quotes from the WFC press office do you think are being presented unfairly? It seems perfectly reasonable to allow the article to use the group's own words to help describe how THEY see THEIR mission--that does not seem NPOV to me, as long as it's clear in context that this is their MISSION and not necessarily what they're doing. I think the article is making a good contrast between their self-stated goals and the controversies they've created. So which WFC quotes do you think make the article feel too pro-WFC? Aristophanes68 (talk) 03:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I think as the article progresses we won't need their press materials. I hope it all gets cleared up. I think a new section should just be about their formation then maybe break up the history timeline as things really hit the fan for them this year. Maybe with the Hate group designation and protests they'll suddenly decide to disband and reform under new names again, same hate, new name. Masioka (talk) 03:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Referencing[edit]

Even the first sentence needs improved referencing (or to be changed if no references can be found).

"The World Congress of Families (WCF) is a coalition of conservative groups that oppose LGBT rights and abortion."

  1. "coalition" it appears to be part of a larger Foundation, not a coalition.
  2. "oppose LGBT rights" not in source. Reading between the lines they probably oppose same-sex marriage and same-sex couples adopting, but even that needs to be cited better than this.
  3. "oppose abortion" Again not properly sourced. And needs to be precise once proper sources are found - what abortion do they oppose? Abortion on medical grounds? Elective abortion?

All the best: Rich Farmbrough00:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC).

"Demographic Winter" and opposition over contraception[edit]

The WCF is controversial not just because of their policies on homosexuality, but also on abortion, contraception and sex education. RD has coverage of opposition to Obamacare's contraception mandate. May not satisfy RS or SELFPUB, but SIECUS, Catholics for choice and RH Reality Check have opposed contraception/abortion issues (2013, SIECUS, HR Reality Check. The WCF's Don Feder has a strongly pro-natalist agenda, and "demographic winter" is accused of being made by the WCF themselves. Kathryn Joyce has criticised WCF in an article in RD, and Feder in The Nation - Don Feder reacts negatively to her claim that pronatalist policies use xenophobia to advance an agenda that aims to control women's bodies. May not be WP:RS, but PRA take that line, arguing "Its momentum is largely attributable to organizations such as the World Congress of Families (WCF), which has scant visible presence in Demographic Winter but enormous behind-the-scenes influence... Okafor has gone so far as to allege that the provision of reproductive health care in Africa is part of an imperialist Western “conspiracy,” a claim reproduced in the WCF newsletter. (Much of Demographic Winter was filmed at the 2007 WCF conference." WCF's Don Feder article:

In 2011, he coordinated a full-page advertisement criticizing GOProud's participation in CPAC.
Feder has been criticized for calling homosexuals "a sorry collection of individuals, connected only by their carnal appetites, caught up in a perverted lifestyle."
He was further criticized in 2014 for comments he made in Kiev in which he compared gay marriage to pedophilia and polygamy, as well as his statements of approval for Russian President Vladimir Putin's actions in the 2014 Crimean crisis.

Should have these quotes -- Aronzak (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll put back the comment in the lead about other human rights groups criticizing them--but feel free to add these other ideas into the Criticism section. Aristophanes68 (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Just remember that the criticism should be reported in third-party sources. By itself, the Joyce article, for example, should not be included. StAnselm (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Lead section opening[edit]

The current lead is completely POV - "The World Congress of Families (WCF) is a coalition of conservative groups that affirms a traditional view of the family "centered around the voluntary union of a man and a woman in a lifelong covenant of marriage"[2] and opposes LGBT rights and abortion." The phrase "affirms a traditional view of the family" is POV because it changes the voice from the org's quote to the article itself. See WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:GCONT. The American Family Association is a WP:CONT article that has settled on a very neutral lead.

The American Family Association (AFA) is a United States non-profit organization that promotes fundamentalist Christian values. It opposes same-sex marriage, pornography, and abortion.

I would suggest a similar two sentences in the lead referring to the organisation as a not for profit political lobbying group, then defining what their agenda is, Eg "The World Congress of Families is a United States organization that promotes Christian right values internationally. It opposes same-sex marriage, pornography, and abortion." -- Aronzak (talk) 01:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

It's a sound proposal, I agree and support it. Elizium23 (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
What is the source for saying it promotes "Christian right" values? It sounds like WP:SYNTH to me. We'd also need a source for calling it a " political lobbying group". But I don't quite see the problem with saying that they affirm a traditional view of the family, etc. - if that's what they say that they affirm, then that's what they affirm. We are just describing their affirmation, we are not evaluating it. But maybe we are interpreting "affirmation" in a slightly different sense, in which case it should be changed, since readers might have the same misinterpretation. "Stand for" perhaps? StAnselm (talk) 03:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
The term "Christian right" is used on the WCF9 page (Archive.org) quoting Doris Buss and Didi Herman's 2003 book Globalizing Family Values as "Feminist law professors Doris Buss and Didi Herman wrote, "In terms of international activism, it is through deployment of 'natural family' discourse that the [Christian Right] has had the most success in forging global alliances with other religious movements." If WCF's web editors are happy to use quotes referring to themselves as a "Christian Right" organization on their own websites, it's appropriate for Wikipedia, and it's close to terminology accepted as NPOV on the AFA page. -- Aronzak (talk) 08:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
It's Chapter 5 of the 2003 book "In Defense of the Natural Family: Doctrine, Disputes, and Devotion at the World Congress of Families II Conference". Other sources include American Prospect (no one line quote), one of Herman's lectures where she calls the WCF part of the American Christian Right agenda. -- Aronzak (talk) 09:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's fair enough. Thanks. StAnselm (talk) 12:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
If it's a coalition that should be in the lead. "American" rather contradicts "World", don't you think? Dougweller (talk) 10:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Criticism POV tag?[edit]

Wait wait wait. We've been arguing over being too kind to the WFC in the lead and someone else comes along and tags the Criticism section for being non-neutral? Does anyone else here agree that the Criticism section is too strong??? Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not that I consider the content in the criticism section non-neutral; it's that articles really shouldn't have criticism sections at all. A more balanced approach is to weave the criticisms into the resto of the content in a logical flow. Since this article is mostly chronological, I have been including the criticism in the appropriate context. Here are is a guideline (WP:STRUCTURE) and an essay (WP:CSECTION) that explains it better than I can.
Criticism sections are usually relegated to the bottom of articles, which makes the criticism less prominent. For some subects where there is not a lot of criticism, this may be OK, but for an article like this where almost all of the organization's notability is based on controversy and criticism, it violates WP:NPOV to stick it on the bottom.- MrX 17:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. I was worried you meant the opposite: that the criticisms were too stong. Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
In any case, it seems to integrate well into the rest of the article; I have removed the heading and the tag. StAnselm (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I was making almost the same edit when we conflicted. - MrX 17:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Organization?[edit]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the World Congress of Families is not an organization, is it? According to their website it is "an international network of pro-family organizations..." and "...a project of The Howard Center for Family, Religion & Society in Rockford, Illinois (www.profam.org)." which would be consistent with being a congress. They don't show up in Illinois' corporation database, foundationcenter.org, nor guidestar.org- MrX 18:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The lead used to say "coalition" until that was replaced with "organization" yesterday. Which seems to be wrong. Dougweller (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
OK. I changed it back to coalition, which seems to be more accurate.- MrX 19:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Do we need to change/remove the categories? Four out of the five categories in the article have "organization". StAnselm (talk) 22:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I think so. It should probably be categorized somewhere under Category:Supraorganizations.- MrX 23:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Mother Jones describes them as "the Rockford, Illinois-based World Congress of Families (WCF), an umbrella organization for the US religious right's heavy hitters." Masioka (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Kevin Andrews[edit]

The Guardian "Social services minister Kevin Andrews has asked organisers of the World Congress of Families conservative Christian conference to remove a reference to him as “international secretary” from their promotional material." -- Aronzak (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be/could be a simple factual error that led to this, so it doesn't seem worth including, per WP:UNDUE. StAnselm (talk) 22:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
NO. The SMH reported "Mr Andrews is an international ambassador for the World Congress of Families which is organised by a US-based group dedicated to preventing abortion and the decriminalisation of homosexuality." on July 25. The fact that the staffers of an Australian federal cabinet minister take more than one month to correct a position that had been reported widely in the press is a topic of consideration. If it was an error during the time in which the SMH reported on it then his staffers should have corrected the record for the entire month and a half of reporting. It was a matter of substantial importance to the WCF how federal cabinet ministers in first world countries treat the group. -- Aronzak (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
The Howard Center put out a press release in September 2013. Mamamia reported Aug 7 "Astonishingly, he is an International Ambassador for this repugnant organisation" The Age reported July 15 "Social Services Minister Kevin Andrews, who, according to the flyer for the event, is an international ambassador for the congress."
The staffers of Australian Cabinet Ministers have a duty to inform the minister if incorrect details about them are published in print, on the day they are published. Cabinet ministers have a duty to correct the record if details published about themselves are provably incorrect. Either Minister Andrews or his staffers have made a severe error in failing to correct the record for over a month and a half, and this should be reported on, as it was a major part of the protests to the Melbourne conference, and a major reason why Senator Waters moved in the Senate. [APH Hansard http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fjournals%2F145a8c90-32cd-4c14-a708-b00f0aeda989%2F0019%22] "the Minister for Social Services (Mr Andrews) is planning to attend the conference and give an opening address, and has been awarded the 2014 Natural Family Man of the Year award by the World Congress of Families"
If Minister Andrews is mentioned by name in the Senate's condemnation of the WCF, then it is entirely within the remit of a Wikipedia article to discuss his involvement with the group, and the way the media has reported on it. -- Aronzak (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Content sourced to World Congress of Families' website[edit]

An SPA editor has added content critical of the SPLC sourced entirely to World Congress of Families' web site, for example this. WP:SELFPUB does not permit using the subject's self-published content as a reliable source for it's Wikipedia article when the content is self-serving or involves claims about third parties. With that in mind, I invite CPolicy to justify their edits or propose alternative edits that respect our policies.- MrX 01:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. The latest edit you reverted contained a citation to an independent, reliable third-party source. I therefore used the information in that source to craft a better paragraph, and moved it into the "Background" heading, as it was becoming unwieldy for the lede. Elizium23 (talk) 01:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I missed the Salt Lake Tribune source. Thanks for fixing it.- MrX 01:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on World Congress of Families. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)