Talk:Focus on the Family/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Creationism

I removed the statement that Focus advocates creationism. While it is technically true, in the sense that Focus (like most Christians) believe that God created the universe, it is not true that Focus promotes young-earth creationism, which is the sense the it is usually meant. DJ Clayworth 15:17, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC) Good point! -Probably could also fine tune the others too, such as the difference between homosexual feelings and homosexual behavior. But I'm not going to tackle that now... Pollinator 15:39, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)-

I believe that it would be helpful to clarify, rather than remove, the statement that 'Focus on the Family advocates creationism.' I know relatively little about focus on the family, but it seems non-trivial if an organization denies a widely accepted scientific theory. 67.189.92.236 (talk) 07:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

History

Thought I'd add a bit on leadership, organizational history, and public touring. The intent is to be constructive and useful to those who don't know Focus well. 209.221.222.92 23:54, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC) avnative

Family values

While I understand Rose's (and others) frame of reference and intent in the previous edit, I hope I have reworded the two passages in perhaps an even better way. If you notice, I mentioned "the historic Christian faith." Those not holding to Christian faith will most likely have another understanding on what constitutes "family values." These kind people are of course free to hold beliefs outside of historic Christianity - what the church has believed for centuries. And professing Christians have the same freedom to hold their own belief.

I put out an "olive branch" of sorts by rewording the second passage to say "their understanding." It may not be a non-Christian's understanding, but it is Focus' understanding. And that's who the article is about, right?

My intent here is to improve the article in a fair, evenhanded way, being constructive to whomever may read it. Not interested in getting into the underlying moral relativism debate. . . or a shouting match. Thanks! 209.221.221.146 13:20, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)avnative

Wodfamchocsod

The following paragraph caught my eye.

Focus' facilities are open for tours by the public Monday through Saturdays, excepting certain holidays. A bookstore and cafeteria are onsite, as is the child-oriented Whit's End Soda Shoppe which serves ice cream and "Wodfamchocsod" (world famous chocolate soda) made famous by the Adventures in Odyssey children's radio theatre show produced by Focus.

Wodfamchocsod, eh? Why does this sound like Newspeak to me? ;-) Anville 19:36, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the evil forces of darkness are renaming our chocolate sodas. DJ Clayworth 22:01, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

They start with the chocolate sodas, yes, but pretty soon we'll have provisions in federal law stating that every little transcript ever kept on you by any organization can be examined and archived after being administered by a secret court and then passing by unanimous consent.....oh no, wait..that's already happened, nevermind.~~Paul

NPOV

I don't believe that FotF officially endorses the Republican Party, so to say that it supports Republican candidates is POV. Vacuum c 18:03, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. As a non-profit organization they can't endorse a political party and keep their tax-exempt status. However, they are certainly very Republican. There's no doubt about that. Is there anyway to show this connection without it being POV? Jayc 04:01, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

How about something like "endorses policies that often coincide with the platform of the Republican party"? I have, however, heard Dr. Dobson critisize the Bush administration from time to time for being what Dobson feels is insufficiently attentive to his organization's goals, but I do certainly agree that the fact that the FotF does often implicitly (although usually not explicitly) support the republicans in a vast range of cases does need to be discussed. I'm certainly open to others ways of saying it though. Just pointing out policy similarity and letting readers draw their own conclusions seems like an okay way to me. (Also good: Isn't there a guiding principle set down by Jimbo that says "Don't spoon feed conclusions" or something too?) Anyway, good work. -SocratesJedi | Talk 04:12, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's inaccurate to say that FotF endorses policies similar to the Republican party. More and more Republicans are becoming tolerant or supportive of abortion, and that is one policy which FotF takes a strong stance against. There is no denial that Focus advocates conservative policies. Also, the “goal” of the orginisation is not to get right-wing politicians elected. Focus deals with moral issues. Although it does advocate citizens to vote wisely in regards to moral issues, they don't exist just to infiltrate the government. Dobson has clearly said that Focus on the Family is not a political orginisation. D. Wo. 05:12, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)

Apologies. I was confusing Focus on the Family with the Family Research Council, for which my statements are probably more or less accurate (or at least so I think). Having taken a look at FotF, I now feel like my comments are more or less not-applicable to FotF. -SocratesJedi | Talk 21:51, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of POV, the entire article smacks of POV. There is a lot of ill-placed negativity and quiet criticism throughout in this article. I would argue for a new layout to separate what the organization does and what it's self-proclaimed motivations are (without having to use quotes and special statements like "according to their belief" which act to show the author's disagreement), and then after that the criticisms about it. Rather than having to sift through sarcastic statements and what not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.184.12.140 (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

---

"It [...] supports child abuse, homophobia, and sexual repression. Is it just me or is that maybe not so neutral? V35322 01:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

What's not so neutral is the following: This article skips all mention of George Rekers, co-founder of FotF who was just yesterday embarrassed at the Miami Airport after returning from a 10 day trip with the RENT BOY he hired to 'help him with his luggage'! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.217.175 (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Since it just happened yesterday it may not have been added yet. If you can find a reliable source that verifies the information, it could be put into the article (in a neutrally worded way, of course). ... discospinster _talk 20:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Details are covered in George Alan Rekers AV3000 (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Quasi-addiction?

What does Quasi-addiction mean? I mean, I can see that there may be dispute as to whether or not gambling or pornography is addicting in a psychopharmacological way, but is inserting "quasi-addiction" the best way to get this point across? Maybe something like "struggles with what they view as addictions" or if you wanted to be be quite simple about it just drop it and let the assertion that addictions to those 4 things exist and just say "struggles with addiction"? I like the commitment to being NPOV and I think that adding something there might probably be a good idea, but quasi-addiction is just odd. Anyway, I didn't want to change it directly in case I was stepping on some toes or others disagree with me so I thought I'd open it up for comments before I do anything. Please comment! -SocratesJedi | Talk 04:12, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This article comes across not so much as not neutral as not focussed on the right place. If you listen to any of FotF's broadcasts discussion of the contentious issues mentioned in the article are few and far between. It's much more likely that you will have a talk aimed at helping a couple improve their marriage, dealing with problem children, and such like. Homosexuality isn't going to come up frequently. The article gives the impression that the contentious issues are the main focus. DJ Clayworth 21:58, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is not really a stub anymore

Want to remove the tag at the end? TheKillerAngel 19:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words

"are regarded as a major voice in the Christian right" Any citation available for that?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Retirededitor12 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 19 April 2006‎ (UTC)

Messy References section

The references section is quite messy and contains HTML. Anyone want to clean that up? --148.87.1.171 00:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

American Patriotism

I changed the reference to FotF promoting "American Patriotism" because I thought it was both incorrect and non-neutral. If you look at the link itself, it actually seems directed at the opposite of patriotism. Rather than focusing on promoting shared national pride and identity, the suggestions seem all directed towards the divisive goal of engaging in ideological battle to exclude other Americans. Writing that FotF seems to be replicating this particular faction's framing of what patriotism is. I think it was be more accurate and neutral to write that FotF is directed towards a particular vision of American identity. --JamesAM 02:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Dobson on Gibson

How is this pertinent? The founder commented on an alcohol-fueled event which will be largely forgotten in five years. Will each of his controversial statements be catalogued on the organization's article (rather than his)? Rkevins82 15:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The news article's first sentence is "Focus on the Family ministry founder James Dobson spoke in support Thursday of Mel Gibson and his film..." which makes it relevant. The first 4 words in the whole article is "Focus on the Family." Your claim that it will "Largely [be] forgotten in five years" is your personal opinion. Jews and FF critics may disagree. C56C 04:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

How many of Dobson's statements should be included here? All that receive media attention? My personal opinion about the likelihood of remembering this event is that it is not notable over the next five years or so. The comments seemed relatively innocuous, but that is my point of view. Do you find it notable that a Christian leader forgave Gibson after he apologized, as have a few, more, actors, comedians, producers, conservative commentators, and many Americans. And yes, noted Pink came to his defense. Part of his attempts to rehabilitate himself are meeting with Jewish leaders. Now, how notable is this for Focus on the Family. Rkevins82 06:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Reverting is not exactly "copy editing". Rkevins82 06:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did not fully revert because someone made grammar changes, but I did write to see talk where my reasons for that edit were given. 1) The first four words in the article about Dobson and Gibson's comments are "FOCUS ON THE FAMILY." How often does the AP write an article with Focus on the Family as the lead sentence? 2) Such a controversial event in the media with Dobson fogiving while others don't is notable. At least it was for the AP. C56C 08:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The article has Focus on the Family in the first sentence because it is providing context for who Dobson is. The article is about Dobson, not Focus on the Family. As I've noted, there are a number of people who have forgiven Gibson. The fact that not everyone has is an absurd point to make. Also, AP publication may be a sign of notability, but for Dobson, not FotF. Rkevins82 19:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The news article is about Focus on the Family, note Dobson says "Our endorsement of it stands as originally stated. We did not believe it was anti-Semitic in 2004, and our views have not changed," Dobson said." This is about a group who endorsed Gibson's movie against the claim it is anti-Semimitic (original focus on the fmaily endorsement:[1]).

If Dobson were speaking for himself, the words "Focus on the Family," "our endorsement," "we don't believe..." and others would not have appeared. Clearly, he is referring to his organization's take on it. C56C 20:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice Red Herring. Are you talking about the Focus on the Family's defense of Passion of the Christ or Gibson's DUI? Rkevins82 05:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Its about the comments made, which Dobson and FF forgave. C56C 07:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

FotF did not forgive anything that I can find; Dobson did (and they did not forgive the comments, but Gibson for the comments). You provide an old link that shows FotF did not think the movie anti-semitic. You are supposing that Dobson is speaking ex cathedra because of his verbiage, but you offer no evidence beyond supposition. I do think that we can agree on the most recent edits. I notice that you have done minimal rewrites from the sources. It may need more work if it is to stay, but I would like some outside opinions. Rkevins82 17:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep backpedaling... as I have shown Dobson wasn't speaking about himself, and clearly this is controversial. He clearly forgave Gibson in that "Mel has apologized profusely for the incident and there the matter should rest." If Mel wasn't forigiven then the matter "shouldn't" be put to rest. As for you recent edits calling them "NPOV"[2] is rather interesting considering you removed quotations from the Associated Press. C56C

The removal of quotes was due to the fact that the language was copied in whole from an AP report, which is illegal. If you have problems with specific changes, post them here or go ahead and revert as necessary, rather than sly accusations. In total, I changed the wording for flow, removed what looked like copyrighted material, moved/changed "drunken tirade" earlier in the section as the more clinical "during a DUI traffic stop" As to your comment, I have said all along that Dobson forgave Gibson, which seemed uncontroversial. You are correct that Dobson was speaking for FotF, as verified by the press release, in full. I don't think I'm backpeddling (though I readily admit when I see facts point in another direction), nor do I think that is helpful in finding agreement here. Rkevins82 00:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

International (outside USA)?

Where should that be in the Netherlands or in Belgium or in Singapore. I´m from europe and never read or heard that.GLGerman 19:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)GLGErman

You must be a very important person, if you know everything in Europe.... See http://www.family.org/welcome/intl/. --84.160.80.130 12:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's assume good faith, please. GLGerman's edits weren't vandalism, they were simply efforts to ensure that this article is verifiable. You may disagree with the methods, but I see no problem with the underlying motives. -- SwissCelt 14:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm also European. While there are some conservative Christian groups over there not too far off from FOTF, the institution itself is almost unknown over there, and is considered a cult by the vast majority of Europeans. (The American religious right, in general, has considerable trouble getting a foothold in other countries - either its conservative-Protestant-American exclusivism, or its intertwinment with capitalism and Prosperity Theology, or its wedding to American exceptionalism and nationalism, make it quite unattractive even to most Christians overseas).

I know they have subsidiary arms in New Zeland, Canada and several other Anglo countries, but in none of these places do they appeal to more than a definite minority of people. The United States is the only country I'm aware of where FOTF can call itself "mainstream". 213.181.226.21 (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You never heard of it but you think people consider it a cult? How does that make sense? You just got caught red-handed in lying. So you better rewrtie what you wrote and btw saying Europe is "over there" is a dead give away that you are not European. You lying American liberals are losing your touch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.99.166 (talk) 05:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Kathy Roever story

I have removed it from the to-do list. I could find only one source on Lexis-Nexis and it was from 2001-12-31 ("Women able to forgive man who murdered her daughter," by Lou Gonzalez The Gazette). It was written after she was fired and makes no mention of it. The original link is from a small independent paper that speaks very little about the firing. Focus on the Family has no response in the article (they may have been asked and refused or not asked at all). It is largely a non-notable incident. There is no lawsuit for employment discrimination, suggesting to me that she probably has no case. The firing took place two years and seven months after the rape/murder and 18 months after the conviction. Some sort of argument needs to be made that Focus on the Family acted improperly. None is offered. Rkevins 18:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits by 24.116.191.146

• edit 1: Whether or not some other article has a "Controversy" section is irrelevant. The section in this article has sources and merely reports on what others have said about the organization; it does not make any claims of its own.
• edit 2: "The agenda of people who identify themselves primarily by their sexual practices" is a ridiculous description and highly biased. If that's what Focus on the Family calls it, then put it in quotes and source it. Meanwhile I've replaced it with "homosexuality". ... discospinster _talk 18:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Focus on the Family logo.png

Image:Focus on the Family logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I added and filled out a fair-use rationale template. Langelgjm 01:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Timeline

Are there any objections to moving the timeline to its own article? It's so long that it overwhelms the content here, and it's of sufficient size to merit its own fork. Tijuana Brass (talk) 08:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

"Love Won Out"

This section reads like an advertisement, in fact as far as I can tell it is, an advertisement, thinly veiled with weasel words. I have curbed my urge to just delete it all as POV, since I do believe there are parts that can be salvaged. Ideas (or, if you're from the Eastern US Coast, Idears)? l'aqùatique ^talk 19:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I am the writer of this section of the article...I did it to reference what Love Won Out stands for. It represents Focus On The Famliys views; certainly not my own. It is important for people to understand their claims because they often try to distort and hide them. I wanted the truth of what Love Won Out to "come out" that is why I used many citations from the Love Won Out Guide book. It certainly isn't advertising the Love Won Out conference rather explaining the foundational arguments they use in conversion therapy and and the need to respond to homosexuality. Fyi I myself am a homosexual and attended the conference in order to better convey the ideology's they express. I wrote the article in a neutral tone while at the same time citeing Focus on the Familys opinions which is after all important if it is going to appear on an article about Focus on the Family.

If you have suggestions on parts that you believe can be edited better then please share that with me. ~nycutiepi~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.18.12 (talk) 23:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I see your point, but I think less direct quotations with plenty of citations would probably help to eliminate the "advertisement" feel that I think it gives off currently. I'm actually writing this (having hocked internet from a fish cannery across the street) while I'm waiting in line to board a ferry that will not have internet service until Monday. I'll set it so I can see that section offline and think about it this weekend, try to mull over some improvements, then when I get back in range I'll write again. Thanks for your quick reply, and sorry if my op was snappy- l'aqùatique ^talk 00:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Love Won Out Moved

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

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

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

Homophobic category

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Timeline

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

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

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

Timeline has been removed. As pointed out in the first post by Lionheart Omega, this is lifted off of a webpage,[3] i.e. is a clear copyvio. -Andrew c ^[talk] 18:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disambiguation run amok

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merge However, if merge is unacceptable, then we should redirect Focus on the family to Focus on the Family (United States), and move the dismag page to Focus on the Family (disambiguation) that isn't directly linked to. I don't think it is biased to have the most common search term go to the best article, most well known branch. London goes to the UK, even though London,_Arkansas is more relevant to me personally. Pirate^Argh!!1! 16:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The disamg page is at Focus on the Family (disambiguation) now, if the merge notice is removed we'll add a hatnote on this page to that page.Pirate^Argh!!1! 18:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

 Done Moved. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Gambling issue under Political Positions

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

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

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

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

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

Is Focus on the Family a dominionist organization?

Hi everyone,

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

Then, JeffBillman added the necessary statements and category:

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

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

Here we are! :)

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

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

   This reference states that Focus on the Family is dominionist.

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

2. Jews on First (Dominionism 101)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Love Won Out

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

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

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

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

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

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

To a more neutral and simple:

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

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

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

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

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

The Truth Project

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

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

For those of you who don't know, "The Truth Project is a DVD-based small group curriculum comprised of 12 one-hour lessons taught by Dr. Del Tackett. This home study is the starting point for looking at life from a biblical perspective. Each lesson discusses in great detail the relevance and importance of living the Christian worldview in daily life."[5] (Because this information is from a self-published source from Focus on the Family, it cannot estabilish notability for adding The Truth Project as a separate article. As well, it would not criticize The Truth Project.)

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

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

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

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

What are family values?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Mighty Army section, SPLC

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

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

Newly created/added cat is POV/OR

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

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

Particular considerations for categorizing articles:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Controversy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Having fun?

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

Feminism vs. "militant feminism"

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

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

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