Talk:Family Research Institute/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

This has just been copied and pasted from the FRI website. Might be an idea to de-bias it a tad. Bjrice 06:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. As is often the case, there was a reasonable POV article before which was copied over by a copyvio. I reverted to the Wikipedia version. Cheers, -Will Beback 09:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... someone decided to remove the comment about the FRI being listed as a hate group. -Rachel Insinga 72.224.115.254 03:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Can we please get a neutrality check on this thing?

yes, i hate the FRI, but they still deserve fair treatment Dropal 20:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This article looks terrible -- it really is very biased. I don't know much about FRI, but I can tell by the tone of what I read that this is an emotional response to whoever they are. I'll try to start work to make it a little more npov. CBadSurf 07:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Article re-written / pov check tag removed

I rewrote the whole article, and pointed out to the Paul Cameron article as well. This was reasonable npov. I also removed the pov check tag, but if you disagree, please put it back on and let me know. CBadSurf 08:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Paul Cameron is already wikilinked so there isn't much reason to have another link at the top. Also, I think your rewrite took this too far the other way in terms of POV. The previous version was a bit of a hatchet job against FRI, but this version contains no criticism at all of what is a pretty controversial group. What is needed here is balance and right now that is missing.--Isotope23 17:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I really don't have a pov on this. I was trying to clean up a hatchet job, as you put it. From what I read, the FRI and Paul Cameron are identical -- it is essentially a one man organization. And the Paul Cameron article details the controversy around him. Which was the reason for the link at the top -- to let people know they should go to that article to read the whole story. I don't think there is any need to provide redundant information. CBadSurf 18:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't trying to suggest that you had a POV here, just that a small section on the controversy surrounding FRI should be included here as well because right now this seems a bit one sided. Maybe Paul Cameron should be moved into the intro so he the wikilink is more prominent in the article. Let me do a bit of research here. I've got a couple of ideas on how this could be done that I want to take a day or so to work through if you don't mind leaving up the tag for a bit.--Isotope23 18:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the tag. I have not gotten into a more indepth edit here yet and I don't think this is so one-sided that it justifies leaving a tag there indefinitely until I get off my lazy ass to edit the article.--Isotope23 16:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite the article again. Still very POV. SPLC is not sufficient to call this a "hate group, especially in the first paragraph. Wikipedia is becoming a rather unreliable, advocacy-style source when it comes to LGBT issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.65.76.170 (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Newly created/added cat is POV/OR

Adding new cat Category:LGBT rights opposition is not appropriate here for reasons stated on the cat's Talk page section entitled, "Cat violates Wiki policy?"

Further, as illustrated on Concerned Women for America, the cat may be controversial, and cats are not used for controversial material. The existence of controversy evidences the cat is inappropriate for the page. In particular, WP:CAT says:

Particular considerations for categorizing articles:

• It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. Use the {{Category unsourced}} template if you find an article in a category that is not shown by sources to be appropriate, or the {{Category relevant?}} template if the article gives no clear indication for inclusion in a category.

Obviously, it is not "clear from verifiable information in the article" if the wiki community keeps removing it.

I urge and support removal of the cat, else I urge the addition of either or both cat templates shown above from WP:CAT.

I am repeating this on all pages in which this new cat was added so communities there can discuss. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The judgment in the article was overturned by a higher court I believe.159.105.80.221 (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleted SPLC addition due to recent confliction between the two orgs which violates NPOV for the article.

In the future we can re-debate the entry. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.95.129.245 (talk) 04:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Contested addition of templates: LGBT and discrimination

The addition of templates {{LGBT}} and {{discrimination}} is contested for this and other related articles. The discussion is occurring here: Talk:American Family Association#Navboxes – MrX 21:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits and NPOV

I have reverted edits by Yeoberry for various reasons, mainly related to NPOV. The issues I found are:

1. Changing "The Family Research Institute is designated an anti-gay hate group by the nonprofit civil rights organization" to "The Family Research Institute is designated an anti-gay hate group by the left-leaning political organization". I would not argue that left-leaning is wrong, but removing "nonprofit civil rights..." removes factual information. Some have previously suggested adding "advocacy" after the phrase civil rights.
2. Suggestions that there were disagreement with Paul Cameron's research, when in actuality, the sources state that his research was discredited.
3. Addition of "This designation is rejected by the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission which complains that groups like SPLC have an "absurd standard they apply when creating their hate list". sourced to defendchristians.org. As far as I know, this organization is not recognized as authoritative on this subject. If they are, we would need tertiary sources to indicate it.
4. UNDUE biographical information about Paul Cameron that is self-serving to the subject, much of which is sourced from his own web site.
5. Replacing sourced content about FRI's hate group listing with their own repudiation of the APA and other respected organizations.

I invite Yeoberry to discuss why these edits should remain in the article. - MrX 22:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you, MrX - I reverted Yeoberry too. Yeoberry, I hope you'll join us here instead of continuing to edit-war. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not doing any "edit war". The article was, as I originally found it, absurdly biased, really nothing more than a compilation of attacks on the organization. Even so, I left all the cited material in place and adding more to provide balance. 1. To simply say that the SPLC is a "civil rights" organization, suggests that it does not have a political bent, which is clearly does. "Advocacy" might be a good idea. 2. There are many people who would disagree that Cameron's research is "discredited." You've simply not chosen to believe them. You've taken the word of those who attack him and reported it as if fact. 3. Deleting the balancing material about the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission is an example of bias. They are as authoritative as is the SPLC. 4. I would ask you to find biographical material that is then not from attack sites. The UC Davis stuff is actually related to a blog by one professor who is attacking Cameron and so likely shouldn't be cited either. 5. Again, you're just accepting the word of groups attacking FRI. You haven't found any unbiased, non-attack sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeoberry (talk • contribs) 22:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Just a comment about procedure. It's great that you've responded here, and I'll allow other people to reply. But it's very important that you don't try to re-introduce your changes into the article until the discussion here has finished. StAnselm (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

POV Pushing

The article as of the beginning of 3-7-13 was a propaganda piece with a clear, unrelenting, unfair agenda. I don't have time for a full revision but one should be under taken.

1. Some examples, it calls the FRI "small". If so, then it would violate wiki's notability standards.
2. Why cite SPLC? It's not an organization known for it's expertise on issues related to FRI nor is it a reliable, unbiased tertiary authority.
3. If SPLC is cited, then why is not a balancing organization also cited?
4. The article states that, as if established fact, that Cameron's research is "discredited", without citation.
5. Editors deleted claims by FRI that they've proven malfeasance by the APA, etc.
6. The article cites material from a blog by a professor at UC Davis as if it is authoritative and unbiased.
7. The article is basically a compilation of attacks on FRI while purposely suppressing material favorable to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeoberry (talk • contribs) 22:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It would have been better to participate in the discussion that was already started, but allow me to address each of your points as best I can. First, I think it's hyperbolic and insulting to other editors to simply dismiss this article as you have above. Such attitudes will rarely influence others to support your ideas. I suggest toning it down a bit.

1. Notability is not determined by the subject organization's size, but by reliable sources taking note of the organization.
2. The SPLC is considered authoritative in matters of discrimination, civil rights abuses, hate groups, etc. They have a long history of uncovering civil rights abuses and have been a resource for the FBI. I recommend you read Southern Poverty Law Center to gain an understanding of their history and why they are deemed credible.
3. It's not our goal to balance everything with counterpoints. Articles should represent what the available independent sources say about the subject in due proportion. (See WP:DUE).
4. From Footnote #7: "Started in 1987 by psychologist Paul Cameron, the Family Research Institute (FRI) has become the anti-gay movement’s main source for what Cameron claims is “cutting-edge research” — but is, in fact, completely discredited junk science pushed out by a man who has been condemned by three professional organizations." If you have reliable sources that support Cameron's research, then it would certainly be worth exploring.
5. Because, as I said in the edit summary and the section above, it was a self-serving claim from a WP:PRIMARY source.
6. I think that was recently removed by 72Dino.
7. No, its a compilation of known, notable information reported by reliable, independent sources.

- MrX 00:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

1. The description that it is "small" is unnecessary and prejudicial. Simply cite the organizations membership, budget, etc., as is partially done later in the article. The question then, why did an editor feel the need to insert the word "small". Is it a quote from a reliable source or an expression of an agenda by an editor.
2. SPLC is also considered a highly liberal political organization by others. It's debatable whether it should be quoted here at all and, even if so, why is it mentioned twice? There's no reason why other organization's rejection of that label and criticism of the criteria used to come to the conclusion that it is a "hate group" ought not also to be considered, unless, of course, it doesn't fit the agenda the editor(s) are imposing on this article.
3. First, Cameron isn't guilty until proven innocent. He claims to have been published by reliable, peer-reviewed journals. If so, then that should be noted. He makes specific claims to be a contributor to mainstream journals (and I verified one claim yesterday, regarding the British journal). The main source of these attacks on him are from a blog by someone at UC Davis. That's not a reliable source.
4. Sorry, but the article is really just a cherry-picked collection of attacks of critics of Cameron/FRI. That you consistently edit the article to suppress balancing reporting and eliminate the mention of organizations that offer an alternative perspective suggest you're driven by an agenda. If you can't restrain your biases, then I suggest you stop editing this article.

Yeoberry (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

@ MrX Upon further review, your statement "No, its a compilation of known, notable information reported by reliable, independent sources" is, frankly, a false. There's not one serious, reliable, independent source in this article, that I can see. The verdict that Camerson's research is "discredited" has two references to the SPLC which is not an academic or psychological institution. The SPLC, a leftist political organization with a clear agenda, and a professor at UC Davis (Hayek) are cited as if they have the final word. This is POV-pushing.Yeoberry (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I have added two additional references to support the statements about Cameron's discredited research. I do';t know what you mean by the SPLC having a clear agenda. Please do enlighten us, with cites, if you can. - MrX 16:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec)The Advocate is clearly not a neutral source. I googled Church & State but was unable to identify which publication it is, so more information on that source would be helpful. An academic journal stating the research is discredited would be preferable to support that content. 72Dino (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the Advocate is biased and they are used as a corroborating source. Church & State is a publication, probably left-leaning, that is cited in many of our articles. They are both good sources, along with the SPLC. There were also several other sources available, but I did not exhaustively research them all. I was aiming for incremental improvement. - MrX 16:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Just so I know, is this the Church & State publication being cited? Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it is. - MrX 20:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I may expand the citations a bit to give more information. 72Dino (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

@ MrX,

That you seriously used "The Advocate" as a source suggest you are deeply emotionally invested in a particular POV. That being the case, please stop editing here. The SPLC is not an unbiased source either. You're POV-pushing. Please stop.Yeoberry (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

@ MrX, you mean that you went fishing for some more sources to bolster your POV. Laird Wilcox, claims to have provided SPLC with some of the information initially used to compile their list of "hate groups". He "concluded that a lot of [the SPLC's hate groups] were vanishingly small or didn’t exist, or could even be an invention of the SPLC." Some of the "hate groups" were creations of SPLC informants, rather than legitimate groups. And with the advent of the internet, some of them exist "nowhere except in cyberspace." Wilcox concludes, "The whole issue of “lists” is full of smoke and mirrors."Yeoberry (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not what I mean. Try not to put words in my mouth. And I'm sorry, but what does Laird Wilcox have to do with FRI. If your intention is to discredit the SPLC, you're going to have to do much better than that source and it need to relevant to FRI. - MrX 16:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

@ MrX, basically, you believe whatever source tells you what you want to use to bolster your agenda agaisnt FRI, including the leftist organization SPLC, a blog, and "The Advocate". You're not being fair or honest in your edits. Wilcox has proven that the SPLC list, which you rely on as if it were the final word, is not reliable:

In the wake of an August 2012 shooting at the headquarters of the Family Research Council, some columnists criticized the SPLC's listing of the Family Research Council as an anti-gay hate group. Dana Milbank, of the Washington Post, wrote that the SPLC was "reckless in labeling as a “hate group” a policy shop that advocates for a full range of conservative Christian positions." Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council,” said, after the attack, “I believe [the gunman Floyd Corkins] was given a license to do that by a group such as the Southern Poverty Law Center who labeled us a hate group because we defend the family and stand for traditional orthodox Christianity.” Capital Research Center states that the SPLC "deliberately mischaracterizes conservatives and tea partiers as “extremists”." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeoberry (talk • contribs) 16:27, 8 March 2013 Yeoberry (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

APA and Cameron & reliable sources

Rather than remove this it needs better sourcing, as he was certainly dropped from membership. [1] is a Google books search with load of reliable sources. This one[2] alone looks sufficient, an academic press is the publisher. [3] John Corvino calls him a charlatan. There's more but that should be enough. Dougweller (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete and redirect to Paul Cameron?

Most of this article appears to be about Paul Cameron. Little of the content has to do with the organization itself, which has revenues of only $60 thousand a year and may not be notable on its own. There is already a section about FRI at the Paul Cameron article. Before considering an AfD, I was wondering if there was any interest in deleting this article and redirecting it to the Paul Cameron article (and adding to the Cameron article if anything about the organization is missing?) 72Dino (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I would be opposed to a wipe-and-redirect as you described, but I'm very receptive to an AfD, if you're so inclined, because I think that process works pretty well. Paul Cameron is inextricably linked to FRI, but I think the organization has notability on its own. Certainly our sources (more than 60 newspapers, several books, magazines and news blogs) think so. FRI has very little revenue now, but that was not always the case. Also, they have endured for more than 30 years. - MrX 00:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Classification as Hate Group

This needs a clearly stated definition of "Hate Group". Difference of opionion is NOT enough to classify as a hate group. If another group/ organization defines the FRI as a hate group, please include sources and why. If solely due to difference of opinion without any violent acts or attempts to incite violence, the section heading should be changed to "Controversy" and reported in a neutral manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.226.95.18 (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The definition of anti-gay hate group is clearly defined and the coverage in reliable sources of FRI's designation as such is well-documented. Teammm ^talk
_email 20:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Teammm. There is a definition from the the SPLC: groups that "... have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics." Also, the article lays out the criteria that the SPLC used in this case. Note also the the hate group designation is attributed to the SPLC, and that the designation is notable based on the extensive media coverage that they have received. The SPLC is one of a few organizations in the US which are regarded as authoritative on the subject of hate groups. This is not a simple difference of opinion between the FRI and the SPLC. - MrX 20:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930184613/http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp?S=CO&m=5 to http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp?S=CO&m=5

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: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)