Talk:Focus on the Family/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

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:
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)
I disagree too. I would prefer the version before this thread started, but I WP:COMPROMISED, because that's how we build an encyclopedia. LGBT rights is mentioned once, followed by two specific rights. That's not redundancy; that's a general thing, followed by two prominent examples of the general thing. If you want to claim WP:UNDUE weight, you will need to make a convincing argument, not a bare assertion. As to nobody demonstrating with sourcing that it's warranted, that is plainly incorrect: I provided five reliable source above. - MrX 03:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
@Arzel, you evidently did not read any of the arguments that MastCell or I wrote. I provided evidence. Where's yours? It seems you are more concerned with fighting "activism" than editing an encyclopedia. - MrX 03:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
As it stands currently, I see no sourcing in the article to say that FOTF opposes "LGBT rights", as a generic broadly based topic. (Obviously, there is plenty of sourcing to support opposition within specific categories.) I suggest we remove "LGBT rights" from the sentence and leave in the two items that are explicitly supported by sources. That cures the repetition and corrects the article to reflect what is actually in sources. 97.113.5.118 (talk) 03:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

No synthesis needed. Here's your reliable source. MilesMoney (talk) 03:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Since I have reason to believe that you won't follow the link, here's a quote:
In the words of Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, the battle against gay rights is essentially a "second civil war" to put control of the U.S. government in the right hands, meaning those who reject gay rights.
I think that settles it. MilesMoney (talk) 03:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@97.113.5.118: You're losing a lot of credibility here. "Civil rights advocacy groups identify Focus on the Family as a major opponent of gay rights. The Southern Poverty Law Center, a civil rights and hate group monitoring organization, described Focus on the Family as one of a "dozen major groups [which] help drive the religious right's anti-gay crusade"." The sources are in the article, which I recommend that you read. - MrX 03:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

You're making my point for me. The sentence you quoted from the article has two citations, neither one of which support the generic claim that FOTF opposes LGBT rights. Again, there are specific things that FOFT opposes, and those things are not at issue. But if you are claiming that those citations support the statement directly, then you are reading something into the sources that is not actually there.97.113.5.118 (talk) 04:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC) In addition, SPLC is not exactly a neutral source for this information. Why can't you guys come up with something from a source that doesn't have a vested interest? 97.113.5.118 (talk) 04:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. These quotes specifically refer to "battle against gay rights", "opponent of gay rights", "anti-gay agenda". It's right there in plain English. And the SPLC might not be neutral, but it's reliable. MilesMoney (talk) 04:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
If it's not neutral, then it's not reliable enough to rely on exclusively. Again, why don't you have something from a neutral source? If your position is valid, it shouldn't be that difficult. 97.113.5.118 (talk) 04:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
No, I think it's time for you to produce reliable sources that convince us of exactly which LGBT rights FotF supports or has taken a public, neutral stand on. No original research or synthesis allowed. No equivocation. No death by 1000 paper cuts. Show us your sources or kindly turn yourself into SPI, because you are exhausting our patience here. - MrX 04:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I concur. Please follow WP:PUOSU. MilesMoney (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
The relevant resource is WP:BURDEN. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material." Everything I see at SPLC is just a statement of SPLC's opinion, not a dispositive statement of fact. You need better sources -- sources that don't have anything to gain by embellishing the facts, unlike SPLC which has made a business out of agitating for LGBT issues. 97.113.5.118 (talk) 04:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Neither your nor Arzel seem to have anything more than "I don't like the SPLC". That's not much of an argument, though. MilesMoney (talk) 07:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Bias

Hi guys, just been reading some of the article, and I'm not sure if it's just me or if some small areas are a bit biased and could do with some more neutrality. Some examples that I've noticed:

" Focus on the Family's efforts to encourage adoption among Christian families is part of a larger effort by Evangelicals to, in their perception, live out what they see as the "biblical mandate" to help children." The problem with this sentence is not the message itself, but the wording of it. The words "in their perception" and having "biblical mandate" in quotation marks seems rather unnecessary, and seems to add a somewhat hostile element, as if what FOTF is doing is somehow odd, or that it is doing something bad. Unless there is genuine controversy over what FOTF is doing, I would suggest this sentence be reworded without the aggressive element.

"Focus on the Family works to preserve its interpretation of the biblical ideals of marriage and parenthood" I'm just not seeing how an organisation can have its own interpretation of biblical passages, especially when it comes to "LGBT rights" and same sex "marriage". Now feel free to debate me on this, but the Bible makes its' stance pretty clear when it comes to homosexuality. I have been reading the Bible daily my whole life and I can guarantee you that unless you try and twist passages out of context and squint your eyes a little, the Bible nothing but condemns homosexuality. So by saying "its interpretation" is to imply that it has an interpretation that is on the fringe, somehow incorrect, or challengeable.

What do you guys think? Do you think these should be changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonosbro (talk • contribs) 04:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Your first example seems to use too much qualification and should be written less POV. However, we are not supposed to interpret primary sources such as the Bible and determine whether a specific religion follows it. While a proper interpretation of Leviticus is probably that it condemns homosexuality, that does not necessarily mean that it applies to modern Christians any more than kosher food rules do. That the issue could be reasonably argued means that we cannot come down on one side of the interpretation. TFD (talk) 05:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@Jonosbro: I tend to agree that this page is biased against Focus. Although I understand the need for neutrality as far as religion and stance on political or social issues, this page goes far beyond neutrality. I don't ask that the page cite FOTF's stances as the absolute truth ( TFD ), however, FOTF's views do not need to be portrayed as outmoded or incorrect just because the majority of Wikipedians disagree with them. This page is not neutral. reidawilson (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Reidawilson, this page doens't seem to be neutral to me either... Benlikeshotchocolate (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
If you have specific edits to suggest or even specific portions that you think are a problem, please note that. This is a long article and it is not clear what portions you are addressing. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

"Pseudoscience" and "marriage equality"

Edits recently have tried to introduce the term "pseudoscience" repeatedly in the lead. The problem with that is both that the sources being cited are not talking about FOTF, thus making it WP:SYNTH, and that the term "pseudoscience" is being at least somewhat misused (abstinence-only education is often argued for on the basis of values, rather than presenting it as science.)

As for insertion of the term marriage equality, as well established at discussions on the same-sex marriage topic, is not a WP:NPOV term. It's one used by one side of the discussion, as homosexual "marriage" is used by the other side, but measured sources are using same-sex marriage. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

"12 members"?

What does that mean? Twelve members on the board of directors? It sounds like it's saying it's an organization of 12 people, yet with 746 employees and 112 volunteers..45Colt 18:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it essentially means Twelve members on the board of directors. There are other infobox parameters for employees, volunteers, etc.- MrX 18:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Focus on the Family. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Focus on the Family. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits

Editor ServB1 has repeatedly changed content in the article adding poorly-sourced content, spelling errors, and content overly favorable to the subject. By my count at least three editors have objected to these changes. I'm opening this section so that ServB1 can seek consensus before making these changes again.- MrX 19:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Focus on the Family. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

checkY The help request has been answered. To reactivate, replace "helped" with your help request.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

"Pro-life"

I recently removed the descriptor "pro-life" from a statement about FotF's opposition to abortion. This was in part because it was redundant, as what was meant by "pro-life" in the sentence was specifically opposition to abortion, which was more clearly stated as such. But it's also because FotF's stance does not fit the grouped set of stances that is often meant when the term "pro-life" is used. Notably, the support the death penalty. As such, even if they use the term, we should be at least careful in applying the term to them. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Focus on the Family. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Focus on the Family. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

More details and background on how it got to become a church

here Doug Weller talk 18:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Revert

I reverted the recent edit because it removed material from the lede that was sourced in the body. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

NPOV

Closing as non-actionable. OP or others can return when and if they have actual sources.--Jorm (talk) 19:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

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.

This article is extremely biased. FOTF is not opposed to "LGBT" rights, it promotes traditional marriage and normal sexual behavior. Henry Hannon (talk) 04:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

It promotes them by opposing LGBT rights, so that's OK.
The article is based on reliable sources, and they say FOTF is anti-LGBT-rights. We will not remove that because some person on the internet disagrees with the reliable sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:34, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the article is biased. Without removing the content or reliable sources, I provided content in counterpoint to the bias, and my changes were unjustly reverted. Everything I provided was cited & verifiable. The revert was vandalism - removing the neutral point of view which the edits provided. I maintain a copy of my original edits, and I am more than willing & able to prove my case. BoyBlueSky (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

In agreement that this article is clearly biased against the organization. This is tipped off by the lead sentence, which describes it as "a fundamentalist Christian organization". It would be less pejorative and more accurate to use the term "evangelical." BlueMesa171 (talk) 03:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Is "fundamentalist" pejorative? Why? HiLo48 (talk) 03:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Church historian Bruce L. Shelley, writing in the New International Dictionary of the Christian Church (1974), says "Due to the tactics of certain leaders, the fundamentalist image eventually became stereotyped as close-minded, belligerent, and separatistic. In the 1950s a growing number of conservatives attempted to set aside the fundamentalist label. Harold John Ockenga [President of Fuller Seminary, editor of Christianity Today] was one of the first to propose "new evangelical" as an alternative. He called for a conservative Christianity which held to the central beliefs of the Christian faith, but which was also intellectually respectable, socially concerned, and cooperative in spirit. Since the late fifties, this perspective has deepened and broadened." BlueMesa171 (talk) 05:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The words of a specialist dictionary from almost half a century ago aren't going to be a good guide to the meaning of a word today among the general public in all the English speaking world. HiLo48 (talk) 06:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I cited that source since it described the emergence of a "new evangelicalism" from the older fundamentalism, and to help in making a distinction between the two movements. The joke used to be that "an evangelical is a fundamentalist with a PhD". As it happens, the founder of Focus, James Dobson, does have a PhD (USC, child psychology). But at any rate he departed 15 years ago, and the current president, Jim Daly, is of a more irenic temperament.

More to the point, the article on "Fundamentalism" in the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (3rd ed. Revised, 2005) concludes with this sentence: "In Britain it is found within conservative Protestant denominations, but the term is rejected as pejorative."

In a posting on his blog "Get Religion", journalist Terry Mattingly writes: "The powers that be at the Associated Press know this label is loaded and, thus, for several decades the wire service's style manual has offered this guidance for reporters, editors and broadcast producers around the world:"

"Fundamentalist: The word gained usage in an early 20th century fundamentalist-modernist controversy within Protestantism. ... However, fundamentalist has to a large extent taken on pejorative connotations except when applied to groups that stress strict, literal interpretations of Scripture and separation from other Christians.

"In general, do not use fundamentalist unless a group applies the word to itself."

www.tmatt.net/columns/2011/05/define-fundamentalist-please%3fformat=amp

Now, Jerry Falwell, of "Moral Majority" fame, was happy to identify himself as a fundamental Baptist, but Jim Daley and the folks at Focus on the Family would call themselves evangelicals. BlueMesa171 (talk) 12:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not care what individuals or groups describe themselves as, nor does it care how dictionaries define things. It cares about what reliable, third-party sources say.--Jorm (talk) 14:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I think that the Associated Press Style Manual should be sufficiently reliable to demonstrate that the term "fundamentalist" is often used pejoratively, as it has been here as a descriptor for Focus on the Family. And dictionaries help us to understand the meaning of terms and use them within the right context. But if you want to see a reliable third party source with specific reference to the subject of this article, we have this from the New York Times:

"Mr. Daly continued what has been the signal initiative of his term at the evangelical group: transforming an organization associated with the divisive strife of the culture wars into one that invites civil dialogue with its religious and ideological foes."

www.nytimes.com/2013/03/09/us/focus-on-the-family-transforms-its-message.amp.html

Labeling the group as fundamentalist rather than evangelical is quite simply pejorative, and indicative that the article is not NPOV and needs work. BlueMesa171 (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The AP Style manual is not a reliable source about Focus on the Family. Why would you think it was?--Jorm (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The AP Style Manual offers guidance regarding usage of the word "fundamentalist". With reference to Focus on the Family, I cited a 2017 article in which it is referred to as an "evangelical group."

A recent reference work, Evangelical America: An Encyclopedia of Contemporary American Religious Culture, ABC-CLIO, 2017, includes an article on Focus on the Family which begins with this sentence: "James Dobson is the founder of the evangelical parachurch ministry Focus on the Family" (p. 160). The article by Sandra Glahn and Marni Blackstone Legaspi concludes with this: "Focus on the Family illustrates the enormous reach of parachurch ministries in American Christianity and the intensity of evangelical commitments to social and cultural values it comsiders biblically centered or biblically derived" (p. 161). BlueMesa171 (talk) 23:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Again, I will say: "The AP Style manual is not a reliable source about Focus on the Family. Why would you think it was?" It doesn't matter what the AP style guide says about the word "Fundamentalist". At all. What matters is what reliable third party sources say about Focus on the Family, which calls them "Fundamentalist."--Jorm (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Jorm, this is becoming a bit tedious, but of course the AP Style Manual has a bearing here. HiLo48 asked "is 'fundamentalist' pejorative? Why?" So I have proceded to cite authoritative sources to show that "fundamentalist" is, in this context, pejorative. I have also cited reliable sources, including the New York Times and an authoritative reference work, demonstrating that Focus on the Family is better described as an evangelical organization. What are the "reliable third party sources" you refer to that use the term "fundamentalist"? BlueMesa171 (talk) 00:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

A brief search finds more sources than it would be practical to list which refer to Focus on the Family as fundamentalist, and further, they use this as a defining trait. If this is becoming tedious, introducing some completely unrelated manual of style certainly won't help. Wikipedia doesn't use the AP style guide, because we are not the AP. We're not even a news outlet. Further, it is entirely possible to be both "evangelical", and "fundamentalist". Grayfell (talk) 01:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, interesting Greyfell, because I just did the same search and found only two (not counting the Wikipedia article). And not exactly "reliable". One was on RationalWiki, and the other is a tendentious article by Rob Boston with Americans United for Church and State. Rob Boston also serves on the Advisory Board for the Secular Coalition for America, along with atheists Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris.

I also found a couple of articles published after Dobson stepped down from his radio show in 2010. The Wall Street Journal, under the headline "Evangelical Group Seeks Broader Tent" describes Focus as "the evangelical radio ministry that grew into a powerhouse of the religious right." And Talking Points Memo similarly refers to Focus as "the powerhouse evangelical ministry", and as a "influential Christian conservative group".

A 2007 book, The Jesus Machine: How James Dobson, Focus on the Family, and Evangelical America Are Winning the Culture War (St. Martin's Press) by journalist Dan Gilgoff is described on the back cover blurb as "the first book to examine Focus on the Family as the cutting edge of the larger evangelical movement..."

Unless someone can actually cite the "reliable third-party sources" that refer to Focus as "fundamentalist", the "reliable third-party sources" actually support the term "evangelical". In the interest of NPOV and accuracy, this article should follow suit.

With respect to the possibility of being both "evangelical" and "fundamentalist", we are back to definitions and usage. I suggest reading a section of the article on the late Jerry Falwell Sr.#Relationship with American Fundamentalism. BlueMesa171 (talk) 03:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, Rob Boston's group is Americans United for Separation of Church and State. BlueMesa171 (talk) 03:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I was afraid of that. See, once we get into a cite-count competition, the point gets lost in the weeds.
The original claim was that "fundamentalist" is pejorative. Sources absolutely do not support this in this context. Perhaps you are aware that Google filters results based on previous searches. A search for "Focus on the Family" "fundamentalism" in anonymous tab produces many results beyond those you mention. As a few examples, we see Democracy Now (2008), The Guardian (2012), The New York Times (2011), etc. One that comes up near the top of that particular search is "Fundamentalism and the Family: Gender, Culture, and the American Pro-family Movement" from the Journal of Women's History (1999):
Some relevant quotes, for convenience:
Dobson's success is not surprising. By the late 1970s, evangelicals were hardly a sectarian group out to punish their children into conformity. Although at one time, self-defined evangelicals and fundamentalists were lower on the economic and educational ladder than more liberal Protestants, the gap closed quickly in the 1970s (emphasis mine)
As successors of fundamentalist John Rice during the 1960s and 1970s, Bill Gothard and James Dobson proved remarkably adept at negotiating between the old fundamentalist-style authoritarianism and the increasingly relational ethos of child rearing. Dobson in particular attracted a middle-class audience of evangelical parents who for religious reasons were not comfortable with the "child-centered" philosophies of such secular authorities as Haim Ginott (Parent Effectiveness Training) and Dr. Spock - Again the source uses the two as either very closely overlapping, or as interchangeable, but Dobson is clearly being described as part of this group in non-pejorative, almost flattering language.
This is a peer-reviewed academic journal published by Johns Hopkins University Press, and while I know little about it, it's not plausible that it would use "pejorative" language casually.
Switching over to Google Books, we find that anthropologist Richard T. Antoun described Focus on The Family in chapter six of his book 'Understanding Fundamentalism: Christian, Islamic, and Jewish Movements' published by Rowman Altamira in 2001.
It is also discussed several times in 'Encyclopedia of Fundamentalism: Volume 3 of Religion & Society'. This and other academic books about fundamentalism are discussing Focus on The Family in significant depth.
These are just the easiest ones to find. I would not have to dig too hard to find more examples of how sources discuss "Focus on the Family" specifically as both fundamentalism and evangelicalism. Grayfell (talk) 04:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Again, these are just a few examples. The point is that "evangelical" is not pejorative when used to describe Focus on the Family.
If your point is that sources use the term "evangelical", sure, but that's shifting the goalposts. Regardless, these same sources pretty clearly tell that it's not that simple. If it's not that simple, we shouldn't pretend that it's simple by using ambiguous language. Representing a topic by the broadest, most accommodating would be a form of whitewashing. The point of Wikipedia is specifically to provide clear information, not to obfuscate with generalities. Grayfell (talk) 04:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Steven Waldman says that fundamentalist is a subset of evangelicals and implies social and political conservatism.[3] The term is only derogatory in the sense that it implies the person is a social and political conservative, which not all evangelicals are. It's similar to how it is derogatory to call Obama and Biden socialists but not Sanders or AOC. TFD (talk) 04:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

TFD's point is a good one. And yes, generally speaking, one could say that fundamentalism is a subset of evangelicalism. However, as with all things, there is a spectrum. Again I reference the article Jerry Falwell Sr.#Relationship with American Fundamentalism, which speaks of his moving somewhat left of seperatist fundamentalism, yet still remaining to the right of mainstream evangelicalism in many respects. Or contrast Bob Jones Jr. and Bob Jones III with Billy Graham. And the analogy of calling Obama or Biden "socialist" vs. Sanders or AOC is apt. And that's what is done here. It's pejorative when misapplied. My Random House Collegete Dictionary has this concise definition of fundamentalism: "A movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible in all matters of faith and doctrine, accepting it as a literal historical record." While Waldman is correct in saying it implies social and religious conservatism, but again there is a spectrum, and the traits of fundamentalism go far beyond that. Seperatism would also be a defining trait, and one thinks also of Young-Earth creationism and a general attitude of obsurantism. I don't think it's fair to put either James Dobson or Jim Daly into this box. Doing so, especially in light of so many reliable sources that identify them and Focus on the Family as "evangelical" is therefore pejorative. I will respond to Greyfell's cited sources in another post, but I'll just say here, "weak." BlueMesa171 (talk) 07:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Misspelled it: obscurantism BlueMesa171 (talk) 07:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Noticed that I also misspelled "separatism"... it's late. BlueMesa171 (talk) 08:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

No one is reading your long screeds that do not include any reliable, third party sources to support your view. You do not have consensus for the change you wish to make. It is time to drop the stick and move on. Your next stop, if you want to escalate (and I'd recommend against, because you will not get satisfaction, and will instead cement your opposition), is to go to the Neutral point of view noticeboard and open a thread there. I am going to close this one in about an hour or so because there's no value to continuing this thread.--Jorm (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Well Jorm, you seem to have an emotional investment in defending the use of this one word, which leads to the suspicion of some personal animus toward this organization. It serves to confirm the bias.

As to the sources cited by Greyfell, the first one to Democracy Now! was to a long-form interview of Jeff Sharlet, the author of the 2008 book The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power. Your search turned this up simply because "fundamentalism" is in the subtitle of the book and the author mentions Focus on the Family in the transcript. But this actually has zero to do with Focus. Toward the end of the hour, at 51:25, Sharlet says: It's really on a scale that's, I think, unparalleled by the better-known [lobby] groups like Focus on the Family or Family Research Council, those kind of more visible Christian right-wing groups, which are, frankly, more democratic in nature." Nowhere is Focus described as fundamentalist. So scratch this as a source. The second two sources you've cited, from the New York Times and The Guardian are opinion pieces where "fundamentalist" is used in the headline, but FOTF is never actually called "fundamentalist" by the writer. The Guardian piece is actually about the American Family Association butting heads with the SPLC, and FOTF gets mentioned in passing as an "AFA cultural ally" which, with the Alliance Defending Freedom, co-founded Gateway to Better Education. So again, nowhere is FOTH refered to as fundamentalist in this piece.

The New York Times Op-Ed piece from 2012, headlined "The Evangelical Rejection of Reason" is another instance of "fundamentalism" and Focus on the Family being mentioned in the same article, but again no direct reference. The authors of the piece in one place use the phrase "a momolithic red-state fundamentalism", and several paragraphs later James Dobson is mentioned.

Conversely, I've cited news stories, not opinion pieces, from both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal in which FOTF is explicitly referred to "evangelical".

The fourth source cited by Greyfell, a 1999 article from the Journal of Women's History sets the emergence of James Dobson as a child psychologist in historical context. The article, in the words highlighted, says "self-defined evangelicals and fundamentalists were lower on the economic and educational ladder than more liberal Protestants, the gap closed quickly in the 1970's." So the author is referring to the post-war era of the 1950's and 60's prior to the founding of Focus on the Family in 1977. Note that the author says Dobson successfully navigated between the old style fundamentalism and the emerging evangelicalism of the 1970's. Dobson is referred to a successor to the fundamentalist John R. Rice. "Dobson in particular attracted a middle-class audience of evangelical parents." So Dobson is actually being shown as differentiated from the older fundamentalism, and more in tune with the new upwardly mobile evangelicalism that was emerging in the late 1960's and 1970's.

The fifth source cited, the book by Richard T. Antoun, Understanding Fundamentalism: Christian, Jewish and Islamic Movements examines fundamentalism broadly as a reactionary sociological phenomenon, however the page on which FOTH is discussed does not explicitly refer to it as "fundamentalist."

Finally, the sixth source cited, Encyclopedia of Fundamentalism, Vol. 3 in which FOTF is mentioned on five different pages, again fails to turn up any instance where the organization is specifically referred to as "fundamentalist" by any of the authors. For example, one article mentions James Dobson criticizing a United Nations Conference on Wimen in a 1995 newsletter. Then on page 150 we read: "Focus on the Family, long a purveyor of Christian advice on the radio with a significant distribution network for self-help books as well as audio and videocassettes." On page 404 we read: "The 1970s saw the rise of several programs that dominated Christian airwaves, including James Dobson's Focus on the Family and Charles Swindoll's Insight for Family Living." So apart from the general association of the book title, no direct reference to "fundamentalist". Also, it's the James Dobson era that is discussed in these articles.

So the tag "fundamentalist" cannot be adequately sourced from these references, particularly when we have a number of good reliable sources that explicitly refer to FOTF as "evangelical". BlueMesa171 (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Focus on the Family Radio Theatre Peacockery?

Initially I had made a small edit to add the name of the radio drama series Focus on the Family Radio Theatre in place of simply "dramas". Jorm reverted this, saying that the article I cited by Justin Taylor at The Gospel Coalition was not a reliable source, and that "dramas" was more descriptive. I then made an edit with the additional citation of an article from Radio World. My edit provided descriptions of both Adventures in Odyssey and Radio Theatre including names of Executive producers Dave Arnold and Paul McCusker, as well as the names of some of the mini-series productions. One was the "Peabody Award-winning Bonhoeffer: The Cost of Freedom". This edit was also reverted by Jorm. He says it was "peacockery". I might also have added that several of these productions, with actors recorded in London, have won Audie awards. This is a particularly notable aspect of Focus on the Family, and should be included in the article. BlueMesa171 (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The excessive details are not required. It is enough to know that they make radio plays. Anything more than that is too much detail.--Jorm (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The edit with descriptive info about Adventures in Odyssey and Focus on the Family Radio Theatre should actually be placed in a sepearate section, rather than in the lead section. Looking back at the edit history, there was actually a stub article about Focus on the Family Radio Theatre, but it was decided in 2006 that it should be merged with the FOTF article. But then two years ago that section was deleted. So I propose that a section be added for radio drama productions, including both theOdyssey series and the Radio Theatre productions. BlueMesa171 (talk) 02:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

RE: Ministries - Marriage and family section

Hi there! I had edit 963088641 reverted, correcting a mistake in the section describing Focus on the Family's "Ministries," where instead of listing any "Marriage and family" ministries of the organization, the section simply read "Focus on the Family strongly opposes same-sex marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships" (which, obviously, doesn't describe any ministries, but rather states content that belongs in the "Political positions and activities" section).

My edit simply added a factual paragraph describing one of Focus on the Family's "Marriage and family ministries," as the title suggested it was supposed to have content on. Nothing in the edit was political of controversial, it was only stating that the ministry existed and was properly cited by three indpendent sources. I encourage you to inspect the edit itself. This edit was reverted with the edit summary "no white-washing k thnx." No attempt was made to incorporate the information into the article at all, it was simply reverted with no changes.

I have no desire to start an edit war, and I want to ensure the content on Wikipedia is encyclopedic (neutral in viewpoint) and that we as editors are treating each other with respect and civility, assuming good faith (especially when it comes to editors whom I admire, such as the reverter, Jorm). Even if I don't agree with the organization, I was simply trying to write an encyclopedic statement about them, informing readers what the organization does, and I want to be wary of tendentious or disruptive editing. :) This is why I would like to appeal the reversion of my edit. Emitewiki2 (talk) 02:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC) I am glad we can all collaboarte together to make Wikipedia a great source of information!

The most important part of that section - "Focus on the Family strongly opposes same-sex marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships." - was removed. That changes the meaning of the section entirely. You'll need consensus to do that.--Jorm (talk) 03:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
@Emitewiki2: Your edit has serious sourcing problems: you used these as "sources".
1) a treatment center listing
2) an article written by: "Today’s column is guest-written by Bob Paul of the Focus on the Family National Institute of Marriage." - SELF SOURCED, PROMOTIONAL WP:PROMOTIONAL
3) a website named: theologydegrees.org
Please read about Reliable Sources: WP:RS. ---Avatar317(talk) 05:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Hey guys, thanks for responding! :)
I'm not upset and I'm not here to get into any inflamatory, back-and-forth arguments. I only ask that you afford me the same patience & kindness, and take a minute to step away before posting any responses so that none of us are coming off as aggressive or condescending to each other. Editing Wikipedia is awesome and best when we do it collabroatively, working together and not trying to work against each other to prove we're correct to someone, to "win" something, or to push a certain, single viewpoint.
Listening carefully, being slow to respond, and being open to compromise are all great ways to have good discussion and come together to improve collaboratively. :)
Alright, so the edit. Here's where I am coming from: the section title was labeled "Ministries" (now changed to "Programs", it appears; either way, it is a section describing the different services and things the organization offers and does). Under the subheading, there was the header "Marriage and family," presumably to describe programs that Focus on the Family has which relate to marriage and families. Within that section, there were no ministries/programs listed, but rather a statement about Focus's political views ("Focus on the Family strongly opposes same-sex marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships"). Cool, that's nice infomation, but it is not a program of Focus on the Family, so it belongs in a different section (specicially, the Political positions and activities section, especially the "Opposition to same-sex marriage" heading). My intent was not to remove the information or the citation from the page. As you can see in the original edit, I simply moved the citation down to the "opposition to same-sex marriage" section. I'm sorry if I somehow gave off the impression by editing that section that I somehow wanted to "white wash" the article or "hide" something in it. That was not at all my intent, I was simply trying to place information where it should go and add basic info that reflected what the section title said it was describing (see the edit summary I left).
Now, onto the sources. My goal with the sources were only to cite that the program I listed actually exists. I was not trying to make any claims about the program, not trying to make a value judgement on if the program is useless or not, not trying to describe if the program is popular or not. The sources were just there to show "hey, this is program of theirs that exists." That is also the only thing my sentence was meant to communicate as well ("Focus on the Family runs a ministry called X, in which Y takes place"). I was not trying to offend people or cause controversy with sources. Video games often have their digital storefront listings (like their Steam page) as a reference for their date of release, so to me a treatment center listing seemed equivelant in this case to cite that the program exists. The other sources were only meant to accomplish the same goal -- verify that the program exists.
This edit has nothing to do with an agenda or agreeing with an organization or not, or trying to "spin" something one way. I would make this exact type of edit whether I was editing Planned Parenthood, Proud Boys, Black Lives Matter or the Muslim Brotherhood. I am just trying move information on a page to its correct section, and add objective information to a page about the page's subject. I'm not asking that you immediately agree with my edit or anything like that, I am just asking that you at least understand where I'm coming from so we don't jump to conclusions about each other's intentions in editing. I also ask that you don't gloss over everything that I have written here in sincerity to nitpick a specific technical detail. Please assume good faith in this situation. :)
Now let's work to collaboraitvely compromise and add information to this article together! 👊
Thanks guys, I respect your concern and your edits a lot! Emitewiki2 (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Hey there, it's been a few days and I haven't heard anything back. Hopefully that is a good thing, though I am still excited to hear your perspectives on how we can make compromises and constructive edits together for this article. For the section that caused the contention earlier ("Marriage and family" programs), what do you guys think of the idea of including a sentence that mentions the "Hope Restored" program they run as well as their lack of programs for same-sex marriages, civil unions, and domestic partnerships? That way it gives a full perspective just like we all want it to, and the section will actually address "programs" of the organization like the section heading says it does instead of just containing content that is better suited for other sections.
Let me know if this a solution you like. If not, I am totally open to other suggestions! :) As I said before, I want this to be as collaborative and helpful as possible, and I re-iterate everything that I said in my previous post. If I don't hear back from anyone within another few days again, I'll go ahead and make the edit. Once again, please assume good faith in this situation! I want us to be on the same page about this, working to build off each other's edits to improve this encyclopedia together!
Thanks again, guys! You're all great! --Emitewiki2 (talk) 07:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
@Emitewiki2: When I was a new editor I used to think I could look at a website or a book and quote from them, write something about that they didn't say, etc. Later I learned that this was original research. In this encyclopedia we rely on what independent reliable sources (WP:RS and WP:VERIFY say about a subject, and I'm asking you to do this. Not everything an organisation does is worthy of including in an encyclopedia, and the way we determine what is worthy is to look to see if reliable sources discuss it. Doug Weller talk 10:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Why would you think that a "lack" of programs for same-sex marriage is meaningful or gives the "full perspective"?? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
The article WP:IS talks about INDEPENDENT sources and would be a helpful one for you to read also. ---Avatar317(talk) 23:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Doug Weller! Good point about determining what's worthy to go into an article (even if it's sad to think of information being lost sometimes). I'll try to keep that in mind with all my edits! As a side note, I hope my edit stating that Focus runs a marriage counseling program wasn't misconstrued as original research or "writing something about that [a page] didn't say." As I said before, I only meant to re-orgainze information more correctly so that the "Marriage and family Programs" section would actually list a program. There was no desire to write anything inflammatory or inadvertently upsetting to some users because of incorrect sourcing.

So to actually address the crux of the issue now that everyone is on the same page, what do you think the best way of re-working the "Marriage and family" sub-section in "Programs" is? Do you think it would be best for us to just remove it for now, since we don't have any programs to list there at the moment?

If people are really passionate about keeping that section in there, I can try to do some better research into independent journals and other sources to see if there are any notable programs to list (because I sure don't know of any myself). Otherwise, we can just leave it absent indefinitely which seems fine to me. Do you have any other ideas or suggestions for what to do with the section?

Thanks for the help! I'm glad we can build towards having a helpful, collaborative community instead of just biting new people's heads off! Emitewiki2 (talk) 00:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Tax status

@NatGertler: I'm not sure it's necessary to use the Right Wing Watch source on this. The Washington Post source also notes people highlighting the unusualness of it and potential issues with it (including things about how "churches" are typically defined). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's necessary to use that particular source either, although it did a reasonable job of putting into words that this was an unusual move. I was reverting an edit that sought to eliminate any statement that this was a non-standard filing. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Maybe one of us can pull some of that info from the WaPo source - do you want to or shall I? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
At the moment, what I want to do is take a nap. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, the opinion whether or not this filing is following a "status quo" of previous tax filing status should not be included in the article. It does nothing to promote facts. Logically, why would an opinion provide better insight on the tax status of a group when the group follows published guidelines by the Internal Revenue Service. Billyd992 (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Why should we not chronicle the fact that they were trying something unusual, even if it was successful? Why should that fact be left out?? Its unusual nature was worthy of attention from reliable sources. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Nat, thanks for providing some dialog to figure out the necessary edits for this article. I appreciate you taking the time to further this discussion. Although I must say you stalled the discussion by answering my question with a question. Why would the opinion of an individual provide better insight on the legal tax exempt status of this particular group when the group follows published guidelines by the Internal Revenue Service? Billyd992 (talk) 20:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't see any discussion having stalled. (And given that you were the one trying to change the status quo on this article and eliminate sourced material, to treat someone asking you "why?" would seem to be rather key to any discussion. It certainly didn't "stall" the discussion long enough for you to actually answer the question.) I don't see anyone saying we should remove any statement on the IRS view of such things. I also don't see the IRS claiming that it's not unusual. Pointing out that it's unusual is providing additional information... and it's interesting enough that the Washington Post was making a story out of it ("Major evangelical nonprofits are trying a new strategy with the IRS that allows them to hide their salaries".) --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
@Billyd992: If "unusualness" (or any other random factoid) is mentioned in an Independent Source, than it is suitable for inclusion in an article. Please see: WP:IS. ---Avatar317(talk) 21:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Right Wing Watch is a reliable source run by professional journalists who focus on news about the extreme Right in U.S. politics. It is particularly useful for subjects that receive little news or academic attention. The political slant they have to their reporting is no different from that of legacy media such as CNN. TFD (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Marriage and Family edit

@Jorm: Hey, I was just wondering why exactly you undid my edit on the Marriage and Family section. I don't believe my edit constitutes as whitewashing: I was just allowing FotF to explain its position in its own words and making it clear that FotF is not an "anti-LGBT hate group." Merely being against gay marriage and acting on it in a non-hateful manner (such as lobbying "against LGBT rights") can often be misconstrued as being synonymous with LGBT hate, so I felt like the section needed that addition. Is there something in Wikipedia's policies against that?—J.S. Clingman Fëalórin, A Child of God (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

You can't use their own propaganda as a source for that. They say that it's not synonymous? Who cares. It's what the sources say that is important. --Jorm (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
If you wish to make the point that they claim not to be anti-LGBT, you'll need an outside source to show it's WP:DUE. Otherwise, it's of no more import than anyone else who claims not to be the bad guys. And it's far more significant that an outside source, the SPLC, specifically chooses not to describe them as a hate group, and that point is already made in the article. It is false that they are "merely being against gay marriage", as they have come out against same-sex parenting, host a day to spread their anti-homosexuality ideas in schools, launched a ministry targeted at converting folks away from the gay, and so forth. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
And if you want to see them being anti-LGBT, here's a page where they come out in favor of maintaining allowing discrimination, where they repeatedly deny the transgender experience, and so forth. It's not just about marriage. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining that, you two.—J.S. Clingman Fëalórin, A Child of God (talk) 23:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Repeated Changes by User:Correctionedits422

User:Correctionedits422 insists on changing source content without reference, consensus, or discussion. This section is a place for them to explain their reasoning and attempt to get consensus through discussion. --Jorm (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I simply changed it back in order to reply to objections you brought up, though perhaps a talk page would have been more constructive, apologies there. However, references were added for the last reply and I was not alone in wanting the edit as it was originally made by another user. Going to sign off on this thread for the time being though. Correctionedits422 (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Correctionedits422, You did not provide references; you stuck some urls in an edit summary, neither of which were valid or useful. You will have to provide a reliable source for your change and include it in your edit (not just the edit summary).
Also, just because a different editor wants the edit to stick does not mean it will, or should.
I suggest you do some reading about how to edit Wikipedia. Jorm (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Focus_on_the_Family/Archive_3&oldid=1138684491"