Talk:Focus on the Family/Archive 2

SPLC source
There have been a series of sources used to support the lede claim that the SPLC considers them an anti-gay group due to them misrepresenting research &c. Most of the sources given have been sufficient for showing that SPLC considers them anti-gay, but not the why we are giving. Even source that says the the SPLC considers them anti-gay and considers them to be misrepresenting research doesn't mean that they consider them to be anti-gay because they are misrepresenting research.

I think there's actually appropriate source to be found (or at least something close), just from some memories of editing the National Organization for Marriage article; I don't have time to go hunt it at the moment. I've left the claim in with a "citation needed" flag. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And now an IP editor has added a different source that still doesn't make the claim it's supposed to be supporting. Can we reduce the claim to saying that the SPLC branded them an anti-gay group but remove the claim of why until we have specific sourcing for the why? --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I support your idea in principle. Also, the SPLC matter is not handled well in the lead - it should be moved down to the end of the lead and be reworded/pared down so it doesn't read like a litany of complaints.  Belchfire (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It definitely belongs in these lead, but the deeper issue here is your claim that we don't know why the SPLC calls them anti-gay. The SPLC answers that question directly by stating that they misrepresent research so as to support anti-gay conclusions. There's no ambiguity here, and nothing to interpret. 24.45.42.125 (talk) 00:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Which source and what quote from that source are you referring to? We need one where SPLC specifically states that that is why they've been characterized as an anti-gray group. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What we know is immaterial. What counts is what we can verifiably show with references.  At the moment we have one source that talks about what the SPLC thinks - the SPLC itself.  The citation given does NOT support the current wording in the lead, nor do other sources further down in the article.  So, until such a source is provided, the lead as-written is plainly defamatory and, for all we know, possibly false.  I'm reverting the second half of that sentence for now, and what remains is probably all that needs to be there per WP:LEAD.  If explanatory material is brought forward later, it needs to be expanded in the body of the article before anything goes in the opening paragraphs.  Belchfire (talk) 01:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * SPLC has a total of one sentence in the article body. That is not enough content to justify having SPLCs opinion in the lede. This fails WP:MOSINTRO. – Lionel (talk) 01:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep. WP:MOSBEGIN explains what I've been trying to say quite nicely.  "The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belchfire (talk • contribs) 02:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The fact that FOTF is an anti-gay organization is documented extensively in both the "Position on same-sex_marriage" and "Misrepresentation of research" sections, and it's one of the defining characteristics of the organization. For this reason, we must mention it in the lead. Of course, we can't just say it without sourcing it, which is where the SPLC comes in. You've said nothing to refute this, so it stands.

In the last version I touched, we explain the SPLC's categorization of FOF as "due to its promotion of discrimination against LGBT people, promotion of scientific ignorance, and misrepresentation of research". Let's look at each part.

The part about promoting discrimination is supported by the current citation, where it says, "On Focus' 47-acre campus in Colorado Springs, some 1,300 employees battle against gay rights, sex education and women's rights with an enormous annual budget of $130 million." This is a good general statement, but details are what make it clear.

The part about promotion of scientific ignorance and misrepresenting research is supported in a few places, including my citation, http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2011/07/20/u-s-senator-catches-anti-gay-testifier-misrepresenting-study/, which you removed.

In short, the entire SPLC section in the lead is a well-cited summary. Any attempt to remove it will lead to escalation. I've decided it would be interesting to learn how Wikipedia resolves conflicts caused by people who blatantly ignore citations. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * What you're engaging in is adding your own leaps; the SPLC says they are and anti-gay group and the SPLC says that they misrepresent research, but we're looking for a source that says that the SPLC says that the reason FotF is classified as an anti-gay group is because they misrepresent research. SPLC says a lot of thing about Focus, and it's not our job to guess which one of those things makes them meet the SPLC qualifications.
 * If you wish to escalate this, the next logical step would be a Request For Comment. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If I say that Jeffrey Dahmer is a murderer and then I go on to list who he killed, we would not be stretching anything to say that I'm calling him a murderer because of the people he killed. In the same way, if the SPLC says that FOTF is anti-gay and then goes on to list the anti-gay things they did, it's not a stretch. If you think it is, you need to explain why, in detail. You can do it here, or in an RfC, but you need to do it. Otherwise, your statement has all the appearance of a flat lie, and I'd hate to assume the worst without giving you a chance to explain yourself. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy and guidelines go beyond "what Still-24-45-42-125 thinks is 'not a stretch'". We have policies such as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, which reject things like finding SPLC classifying the group an anti-gay group on one page and finding them saying Focus misrepresented research on another and combining them to make an original claim. I cannot, of course, keep you from assuming whatever you choose to assume, no matter how ungrounded in the truth it may be. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are, I hope unintentionally, mischaracterizing the content of our sources. The same article that talks of its "battle against gay rights" also mentions scientific ignorance based on misrepresenting studies, such as "false information about how AIDS is transmitted". Again, you need to answer this question, not mislead readers about our citations. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are, of course, free to go on demanding that everyone read into documents the things that you choose to read into them, that anyone who doesn't do so is being untruthful, and that others need to do exactly what you tell them to do. You may, however, eventually discover that not everyone here is your seven year old kid brother, and thus these techniques are weak. If you want to convince the other editors who are already here and thus gain consensus, you may wish to take the concerns voiced seriously, examining precisely what the sentence says and precisely what the source says. If you want to bring in other eyes, do a WP:RFC. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

This sort of borderline-insulting, thoroughly unproductive response is why I've bumped this up the dispute resolution ladder. Thank you for reassuring me that I wasn't wrong to do this. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Perception
Belchfire, your edit comment reads, "Citation does say otherwise, in FotF's opinion. I think I made that clear". We don't have a citation that says divorce has negative effects on children. All we have is a citation which shows that FotF believes that such effects exists, which is why I politely called it their perception. If you want to cite a study showing that divorce is more harmful than living with parents who don't want to be together, I'll back down and take out the word. Otherwise, you need to revert yourself right this moment. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Check the new citation I added, from FotF's website. "...divorce brings painful wounds..."  Belch fire  05:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The citation clearly shows that they perceive negative effects. It does not support the notion of objectively negative effects. Moreover, you need to show FotF citing these effects, rather than bringing in any external sources for synthesis. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a frivolous objection. That's a direct statement from FotF's website that FotF makes without qualification.  It's what they say.  "Perceived" is a weasel word and an unjustified expression of doubt.  Furthermore, inserting "perceived" is editorializing.  Belch fire  05:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * FotF is not a reliable source on the effects of divorce, so we can't endorse their views, just report them at arm's length, as by "perceived". Other phrases might also work, such as "what they consider". The alternative is to remove the whole sentence, which is also fine by me. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * FotF is a very reliable source for FotF's opinions on divorce, which is what is being addressed here. If you want the section to be an empirical statement of scientific fact, you have a lot more work cut out for you than just picking apart FotF's own statements about their own position on the topic.  Belch fire  06:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You're conceding my point. As you said, it's merely FotF's opinion that divorce has negative consequences, hence these are perceived, not necessarily actual. Thank you for agreeing with me. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't know the answer, but it's a factual question, so it should be easy to find reliable sources for it. Arc de Ciel (talk) 06:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not a dispute over facts, this is a POV problem. See my statement above regarding WP:WEASEL and WP:ALLEGED.  The edit attempts to impart a POV not present in the source by overlaying an editorial statement of doubt - a form of OR.  At the moment, it matters not - another editor says he intends to re-write the section (see below).  Belch fire  06:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Marriage and family
I attempted to make a number of corrections and improvements to the "Marriage and family section", only to have them reverted generally without explanation by Belchfire. In order to avoid warring over them, here's the section as it now stands: The problems with this (some but not all of which I addressed earlier) are: I haven't taken as close a look at some of the other sections, but this one clearly is in needed of improvement and/or reduction. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The primary ministry of Focus on the Family is to strengthen what it considers to be traditional marriages and families, based on an evangelical view of Biblical teachings. As such, it is strongly opposed to same-sex marriage.[9] This is also seen in the published works of James Dobson, who has written a number of books on subjects ranging from raising children to taking steps to prevent divorce by helping couples with conflict management. One key theme of this ministry is emphasizing the negative consequences of divorce on children. The organization maintains a toll-free telephone counseling service available to anyone in a family crisis.
 * The "As such" is not in the source and is POV.
 * "This is also seen", it is unclear what "this" refers to. Is it same-sex marriage? Or is it that their primary ministry is yadda-yadda?
 * The use of the name "James Dobson" at this point is against WP:SURNAME; Dobsons first name has already been established
 * "a number of books" is needlessly wordy. If we say "books", then we know that there is some number of them.
 * "ranging from raising children to taking steps to prevent divorce by helping couples with conflict management" - who says these two topics are the ends of the range? It's unsourced even that the topics include these, much less that they are the ends of the range.
 * It is unclear what the Dobson books have to do with the topic of this paragraph, which is the ministry of marriage and family. Are these book's part of Focus's ministry, or just works by the founder which parallel it?
 * "One key theme of this ministry is emphasizing the negative consequences of divorce on children." Despite having a reference at the end of it, the primary statement of this (that it's a key theme) is found nowhere in said reference, so it's unsourced and dubious. Also, "emphasizing" would not be a theme, it would be an action; the supposed negative consequences would be the theme. Even the series of articles linked to does not emphasize the negative effects so much as emphasize how you can help children in the divorce situation.
 * "The organization maintains a toll-free telephone counseling service available to anyone in a family crisis." First off, it is not true that the toll-free service this is available to "anyone", as most of the world cannot reach a US 800 number toll-free. Second, this is not reliably sourced; the reference is to an ad page for the service. Is it really centrally a counseling service, or is that just a way to get people set up for referrals? That's the sort of information we cannot count on from a first-person source like this.
 * Furthermore, I question whether they really do "maintain" this service. The page is from 2006, and with a bit of poking around in a couple different methods, I'm not finding any other page of the site that actually links to it. This could well be an old, dead phantom page for a service years gone.


 * Your changes got caught up in an edit conflict - evidently a three-way edit conflict, as Still was also working on the section at around that same time and I see that we have successive edits to that section at 21:27, 21:28 and 21:30 (my time). My apologies, clearly I didn't check carefully enough to see who was doing what and since your edit was only (-3) bytes I assumed it was a minor.  Feel free to implement your edits.  Belch fire  06:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. I've really stripped it down. I was going to include that they sell certain materials, but found that their sales links went to a "partner" page on christianbook.com, so I'm not certain that them selling is even a good descriptor. As for the counseling hotline, it looks like I was right hat that page was at least outdated; active pages indicate that phone number is a general contact number for FotF, and is also for what they call their "family help" line, with a separate number being one where you can "arrange to speak with a licensed counselor"... and that phrasing suggests to me that it is a referral service. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Good catch on the thing with the toll-free number. When I get time I may build this section back up a little from fresher sources... or not, since what's there now is at least minimally sufficient.  Belch fire  17:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Bogus citation.... again.
This article does NOT support the proposition that FotF opposes gay rights. It just doesn't. In fact, all it really supports is that FotF opposes gay marriage - exactly as it says on FotF's website."Change.org reported that Crowther, a student at Western Washington University, gathered more than 20,000 online signatures — compelling Apple Inc. to recently remove iTunes from the CGBG network because it enables customers to donate to Focus and its affiliate, the Family Research Council. The ministry and the lobby group oppose gay marriage and also counsel that being gay is a disorder partly attributable to poor parenting."

To be sure, FotF is opposed by gay rights groups. But it is a failure of logic to say that means the enmity goes both ways, and there is absolutely nothing in this article that says FotF opposes anything more that gay marriage.  Belch fire - TALK 02:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The unoriginal synthesis being applied by our reliable sources is that opposition to same-sex marriage necessarily means opposition to gay rights, as marriage is one such right. Let's stick with our sources on this one. It also helps that FotF explicitly targets "homosexual rights", as in the citation I included. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No. That's not what it says.  No worries, somebody else will come along and correct it.   Belch fire - TALK  03:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That doesn't seem likely, because you're mistaken. Here's what FotF says:
 * The "homosexual rights" ideology continues to seek legitimization – not just tolerance – of homosexual behavior, resulting in changing societal mores and values that deeply impact Americans in their day-to-day relationships with family members, neighbors and co-workers.
 * And they say this as part of an attack on these rights. So, in plain English, they openly oppose gay rights. This is in addition to the secondary sources we have, which support the same conclusion.
 * Honestly, I have no idea why you're trying so hard to hide the fact that they're opposed to gay rights. They're proud of being opposed to gay rights! Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's your personal opinion. Thanks for acknowledging that you are POV-pushing.  ViriiK (talk) 07:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it's their stated reason for existence. Read their web site. But, no, instead you have to attack me personally while edit-warring. How is that productive? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I read the website. I see the same thing Belchfire pointed out.  So where's this you're getting this information from?  Oh, right you're making it up.  ViriiK (talk) 07:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, no, you couldn't possibly have read the web site and come away thinking that they're not anti-gay. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You're becoming more of a disruptive editor here at Wikipedia throwing around accusations of edit-warring like candy. ViriiK (talk) 07:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have anything productive to add here, or just personal attacks? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, do you? I read the website, it's not there, and that's it.  I cannot use my own personal bias to come away with a conclusion nor can I use original thoughts to imply that the message is there.  Are you done?  Any more accusations?  Please do let me know of any more "edit-warring".  It's fun to see coming from you.  ViriiK (talk) 07:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been talking about the primary source web site rather than focusing on your bad behavior. But, no, it cannot be the case that you read through the site without coming away with the clear understanding that they're anti-gay. This isn't subtle, it's not controversial. It's one of their main reasons for existing as an organization. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You still have not proven to me this "source" you are talking about. Where is this that you are finding where they explicitly state that they are anti-gay other than from you?  Please, do link us to the entire world where you are finding this statement.  ViriiK (talk) 07:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

They explicitly oppose all aspects of gay rights, and they're not bashful about it. In http://www.focusonthefamily.com/socialissues/social-issues/progay-revisionist-theology.aspx, they target what they call "'homosexual rights' ideology" and proceed to oppose it. Due to this, secondary sources are quite comfortable calling them anti-gay, and so should we be when we use these secondary sources. There's a nice summary at http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/focus-family which minces no words about this, and there are also more neutral sources that take it for granted that opposing same-sex marriage is inherently anti-gay. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm reading that and I don't see this anti-gay anywhere. Now that's an overview page highlighting the 4 points of what they're going to discuss which more is explained in the same series of pages.  Surely you do know what overview means, right?  I can give you a link .  As for rightwingwatch under the rules of WP:RELIABLE & WP:NPOV since the link is obvious, I'm not going to bother reading that site since that's not my concern.  Why?  I'm not going to let them influence what they interpret for me.  ViriiK (talk) 07:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not going to comment on the reasons for your inability to understand the content of the site. Instead, I'll remind you that rightwingwatch.org is used as a reliable source for many articles, and with care, it can be used as one here. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The FOTF page expresses criticism of homosexual rights ideology . To describe that as "anti-gay" is WP:OR, and rightwingwatch is not reliable.– Lionel (talk) 08:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but are you claiming that they oppose gay rights as an ideology but don't oppose gay rights in public policy, such as same-sex marriage? I think you need to reconsider your claims. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Recreational drugs
This may seem like a small item, but it's important and I don't want to edit war over it. I do not see where Focus on the Family uses the term "recreational drugs". There is nothing recreational about illegal drug use or abuse of legal drugs. It diminishes the seriousness of the issue and is not the term used among organizations like this. I think "drug abuse" is basically what the organization is against and that is the terminology I propose. 72Dino (talk) 02:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that anyone supports drug abuse. As I explained, legality really isn't the issue, since the question is often whether it should be legal, and FotF opposes these drugs even when they are legal. The term "recreational drugs" is meant to be neutral, not lighthearted. It refers to drugs used for non-medical purposes. Take a look a Recreational drug use and you'll see. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have read the article. If you can show me where Focus on the Family uses the term, I will concede.  Otherwise, recreational drug use = drug abuse for most religious organizations, and drug abuse is, in my opinion, a more correct term.  72Dino (talk) 02:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if FotF is convinced that all recreational drug use is drug abuse, that doesn't mean we get to endorse that view. Drug abuse is, by definition, negative. The people who want to legalize marijuana (and this appears to be a clear majority of the USA) would never say they support drug abuse. But it's clear that they support recreational drugs, which makes it a neutral term. To be quite frank, I just don't see a better way of expressing it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The FOTF did not say they were against "recreational drug use", they are against "drug abuse" per Belchfire's edit below. We should use their terminology to describe their position, not the terminology and interpretation of one WP editor. 72Dino (talk) 02:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "We should use their terminology." Now where have I heard that before?  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  02:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Gotta go with the best available source on this one. FotF says "drug abuse".  Somebody who wants to show that FotF (or any Christian organization) draws a distinction between legal and illegal, has their work cut out for them.  ALL use of intoxicants is seen as "drug abuse".  There is no "recreational" use that fits their principles.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  02:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for supporting my argument. What they call drug abuse is what is neutrally termed recreational drug use. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If they state they are against drug abuse, that's what should be put in the article. 72Dino (talk) 03:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but WP:NPOV prevents us from doing that, as it would require Wikipedia to agree with their apparent claim that all recreational use is abuse. There is no reliable source for such a thing, which would lead us to violate WP:RS. Really, "recreation drugs" is very neutral and supported. I don't see any better alternative. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Consensus is to go with the wording from the source: "drug abuse" Case closed.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  03:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have no authority to declare any such thing. Instead of listening to you, I'll listen to WP:NPOV and WP:RS. If you don't like it, go complain on the content dispute resolution page. I'm confident your view will be rejected. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That is your description rather than that of FOTF. It is not up to you to interpret their statements of their position. 72Dino (talk) 03:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it's not my view, it's the view of reliable sources. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Change.org is not a reliable source so I didn't bother looking at that. The Denver Post is an RS, but I see no mention of drugs in that article. 72Dino (talk) 04:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't see it because... wait for it... there is no mention of drugs in that article. He doesn't have a source, he's just engaging in vexation tactics, for what reason, we can only guess.  It's not necessary to trouble yourself - as I pointed out a while ago, we already have consensus and the only reason the article hasn't been updated is that I've already done my share of reversions for the time being.  Ignore the nonsense about "not having authority".  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  04:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)The Los Angeles Times states the FOTF handles "problems of chemical substance abuse", which is also an acceptable term. 72Dino (talk) 04:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would also be OK with "substance abuse", if you feel that is appropriate. In fact, it might be even better.  Just so we avoid the qualifier "recreational", which we both find problematic.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  04:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Same problem: nobody supports abuse. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

What does it matter if no one supports substance abuse? Either get rid of it or use the term "abuse" as stated by FOTF and by the LA Times. 72Dino (talk) 04:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It matters because that makes it a biased description. It's not that FotF opposes abuse, since everyone does, it's that is opposes recreational use on the non-objective basis that all use is abuse. This means that following their bias would violate WP:NPOV. That's why the LA Times was careful to attribute the drug abuse idea as "according to Dobson". Of course, if I were to phrase it as "what it considers drug abuse", I fully expect that Belchfire would launch into an edit war against "weasel words". Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is the description from the organization and a reliable source. You may not add your own original research and interpretation of the sources.  Either it should be removed or use the term used by those sources.  Do you want yet another DRN on this article?  72Dino (talk) 05:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, actually, it's not. This isn't complicated: there is no RS for FotF being against actual drug abuse. There are many RS for FotF being against recreational drug use on the basis of considering it to be abuse. That's why the LA Times was so careful in its phrasing, and why we must do the same. If you can't handle this and want a DRN, go for it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If that's the remaining counter-argument - that nobody supports substance abuse - then we have a winner, and "substance abuse" is our term of choice. The counter-argument fails ab initio because MANY people and organizations support the abuse of illegal substances.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  04:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You keep speaking for yourself as if you speak for others. Why? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources presented make a strong case for "substance abuse" or similiar. I agree with Belch's and 72Dino's well reasoned argument. – Lionel (talk) 06:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV does not permit use to equate drug use with drug abuse. This is not negotiable. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * While the initial assumption of this discussion that there's nothing recreational about the use of illegal use of drugs is wrong (plenty of things are a bad idea and dangerous and are nonetheless done for recreation), it's also improper to cast all that's commonly viewed as drug abuse as recreational. The baseball player pumped on steroids or the long-haul truck driver using uppers to keep going is not being recreational. The woman who starts taking painkillers for legitimate pain and then has withdrawal symptoms whenever she tries to stop is not being recreational. I don't see anyone putting forth a source indicating that FotF separates out the recreational subset of drug use. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The result of dispute resolution is that the following options were generated:
 * "recreational drug use"
 * "excessive drug use"
 * "what they consider to be drug abuse"
 * That's roughly my own order of preference, but all three are WP:NPOV, unlike "drug abuse". Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 00:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Number 3 for the lead, with possibly more detail in the body of the article. However, please note that not all editors feel the issue at DRN has a final result.  The DRN editor(s) just stated that it is coming back to the talk page.  I didn't see any opinion that those are our only options . . . those came from you. 72Dino (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The straw poll is on WP:DRN. Ebe 123  → report 01:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Striking through my vote here on the poll by Still and voting on the straw poll by the DRN volunteer. 72Dino (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * When I posted this, the talk on DRN was that the dispute was being closed and we'd continue it here. I'm ok with going back to DRN, but a bit confused by the unexpected change. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * For the benefit of any passers-by or those otherwise interested in the result of this discussion, a Dispute Resolution was conducted, and the result was consensus in favor of the wording "substance abuse".

substance abuse
Since the dispute resolution failed by allowing a violation of WP:NPOV, I'll be escalating this to the next level once I've done the necessary research. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * DRN worked great. It was your reasoning which failed.– Lionel (talk) 04:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your comment is counterproductive and borders on uncivil. I suggest that you redact it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Describing your argument at DRN as ineffective is a fact. And it is a direct response to your criticism of DRN. I did not touch upon your motivations thus not uncivil. – Lionel (talk) 04:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Still counterproductive. I recommend that you save your arguments for the next stage. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I can help you with your research on "the next level", if you don't mind... You can start your research here WP:FORUMSHOP. Hope that helps as Anupam says – Lionel (talk) 07:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Word. <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  07:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that was still unproductive and uncivil. One of the DRN volunteers pointed me to the right forum to pursue WP:NPOV claims, so it's insulting to suggest that I'm forum-shopping. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Blatant vandalism socks
Looks like we have a whole family of blatant socks vandalizing the article. I believe that WP:3RR does not apply, according to WP:NOT3RR. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup, reversions of blatant vandalism are exempt. I've filed the sockpuppet investigation. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've filed at AIV since someone might not see the SPI for a week due to backlogs and whatnot. Sædon <sup style="color:#000000;">talk  06:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good move; they're already blocked. This is one the one thing blocking is good for. Its use as a twisted punishment tool is disgusting. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Semi
Note that I've requested PP due to the recent socking/meating.. I won't be around much today but if it turns out that they manage to bypass semi protection someone should request temporary full protection. Sædon <sup style="color:#000000;">talk 06:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That would prevent people without accounts from editing. Blocking this vandal's IP stops just them. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It would temporarily. We don't know if these are sock or meat puppets (likely socks due to account creation time though) so blocking the IP may not stop it.  An admin will reject my request for PP if the problems stop now that those accounts are blocked.  Sædon <sup style="color:#000000;">talk  07:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire gutting the lead
Given the fact that there is a content dispute that we're carefully trying to resolve, I don't believe it's at all reasonable to make bold changes to the lead, particularly ones that erase the text we've come to some tentative agreement about. I suggest keeping edits small, with the recognition that not all of them will be accepted. I also suggest discussing any larger edits here to gain a consensus in advance. Otherwise, we'll just wind up with the article protected. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * First, learn what vandalism is. Second, don't misrepresent other editors' edits ("vandalism", "gutting the lead").  Third, stop editing tendentiously and disruptively.


 * For purposes of fostering any discussion that might be needed, here's what was done...


 * Old version:"''Focus on the Family (FOTF or FotF) is an American evangelical Christian tax-exempt non-profit organization founded in 1977 by psychologist James Dobson, and is based in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Focus on the Family is one of a number of evangelical parachurch organizations that rose to prominence in the 1980s. It is considered to be an anti-gay group by several organizations. A component of the American Christian right, it is active in promoting interdenominational work toward its views on social conservative public policy. Focus on the Family is also currently the primary sponsor for Phil Vischer's JellyTelly.

Focus on the Family's stated mission is 'nurturing and defending the God-ordained institution of the family and promoting biblical truths worldwide.' The core promotional activities of the organization include a daily radio broadcast by Dobson and his colleagues, providing free resources and family counseling according to Focus on the Family views, and publishing magazines, videos, and audio recordings. The organization also produces programs for targeted audiences, such as Adventures in Odyssey for children, dramas, and Family Minute with James Dobson. Both Focus on the Family and Adventures in Odyssey are broadcast on Trans World Radio in the UK.''"


 * New version:"''Focus on the Family (FOTF or FotF) is an American tax-exempt, non-profit organization founded in 1977 by psychologist James Dobson, based in Colorado Springs, Colorado. A component of the Christian right, it is active in promoting interdenominational harmony and works toward its views on socially conservative public policy. Focus on the Family is one of a number of evangelical parachurch organizations that rose to prominence in the 1980s.

Focus on the Family's stated mission is 'nurturing and defending the God-ordained institution of the family and promoting biblical truths worldwide.'[1] The core promotional activities of the organization include a daily radio broadcast by Dobson and his colleagues, providing free resources and family counseling according to Focus on the Family views, and publishing magazines, videos, and audio recordings. The organization also produces programs for targeted audiences, such as Adventures in Odyssey for children, dramas, and Family Minute with James Dobson. Both Focus on the Family and Adventures in Odyssey are broadcast on Trans World Radio in the UK. Focus on the Family is also currently the primary sponsor for Phil Vischer's JellyTelly.

Several organizations have listed Focus on the Family as an anti-gay group.''"


 * Nothing was removed - only reorganized for logical flow, better style, and to make it compliant with relevant Wikipedia policies and practices regarding how a lead should be composed. The content dispute has been resolved; the results were incorporated into these changes.  The suggestion that this was somehow "vandalism" or "gutting" the lead is not only laughable - it's also highly uncivil. Belchfire (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * A suggestion: instead of just providing the two versions, why don't you compile a list of the specific changes you made and the reasoning behind each one? That would probably help the discussion. Arc de Ciel (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Arc, the change I made was to remove the focus on the SPLC and instead list a variety of organizations that consider FotF to be anti-gay. This is based on the compromise that Noleander came up with.


 * The changes that Belchfire has made, and which I object to, amount to the removal of any mention of the organization's reputation as anti-gay from the lead. This does not appear to be at all consistent with the fragile consensus that we've built up.


 * As I said earlier, I do not believe that his solo effort to rewrite the article is a productive use of his time, given the amount of genuine controversy over its content. He moved too boldly, and then pretended to be, in his own words, making only "non-controversial changes". Frankly, this is nothing short of a lie, and there's no nicer way to say it without joining him in dishonesty. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts. If it was a "mass deletion", why don't you show us what was deleted?  Belchfire (talk) 00:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The mention of SPLC's designation of FOTF is still in the lead, just moved from the third sentence to a different paragraph. The three references are still there, too. 72Dino (talk) 00:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

In Belchfire's version, the anti-gay status is buried at the very end of the lead. If it could run any further, it would. :-) Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This one item is not the most significant thing about the organization, but it is part of the summary. We compromise as part of making a consensus. So, it is still in the lead with three references.  72Dino (talk) 01:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The compromise was to trim it down and drop the specific reference to the SPLC. It was not to hide it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Wait, wut? An hour ago you said I deleted any mention of it.  You mean your edit summary and purported reasons for reverting it were ca-ca?  Whodathunkit?  You mean your charges of "VANDALISMMMM!!!!!!" were based on horse puckey?  I am shocked - SHOCKED I tell you - at this mea culpa.  Belchfire (talk) 01:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing such a wonderful example of what civility looks like. The reality is that your bad edit did such a great job burying the sentence that I didn't see it. But, hey, why assume good faith? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it was pretty tough to see because it was buried so deeply within its own paragraph. Spare us.  You said I deleted it completely after I re-posted the new revision here in the Talk thread that you started.  I was assuming your good faith when I posted the before and after versions for your convenience.  Now it's time for you to admit that you acted hastily and on false pretenses, instead of trying to spin your screw-ups to be somebody else's fault.  Belchfire (talk) 01:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Do go on blaming me for how bad your change was and shifting the focus away from how bad your change was. That's very productive. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You were still angrier than you should have been, though. :-) (Not that that excuses incivility from either side, of course.) Also, if you want to quickly see a summary of the changes made in an edit, you can use the "diff" link in your watchlist, or "compare revisions" in the page history.


 * Also, when I made my suggestion, I actually meant to direct that at Belchfire, since it was his edits that were being disputed and he had made several at once. Arc de Ciel (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * In my defense, there's been a recent bout of bad behavior and incivility on his part, so I'm less patient with him than I might otherwise be. I'll try to remain calm, though, and focus on the article. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Belchfire's change is an improvement. The lede flows more logically with the anti-gay stuff relocated. And while not unanimous, it looks like Belch's change has consensus based on sound reasoning. – Lionel (talk) 09:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Next Step: create new version of lead that summarizes body
Comment - I think the lead is best when it just contains a broad statement like "Several organizations consider FOTF to be anti-gay ..." . I see no need to mention SPLC in the lead, even though they are well-known and well-regarded in the civil rights arena. The body of the article, on the other hand, can contain lots of detail in the Same-Sex marriage section, including quotes from organizations, etc. I see that some of the original problems in that section have been remedied: it used to contain misleading summary of SPLC's view, but now it is much more accurate. As for the dispute immediately above, I think that Belchfire was making a good-faith effort to improve the article, and Still-24 simply overreacted. It happens. I suggest that, from this point forward, all comments should focus on the content, not the contributors (see Comment on content, not on the contributor). Focus on suggesting specific improvements to wording & phrasing. --Noleander (talk) 03:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * One of the little things you pick up in journalism classes is that people stop reading a section when they've had enough. The deeper a sentence is buried, the less chance anyone will be around to read it. On that basis, moving the anti-gay sentence to the very bottom of the lead is not indicative of a good-faith effort.
 * In any case, I think the current state of the article is an improvement over what it was. We can do better, though. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think a stand alone sentence in the lead section instead of buried in a paragraph gives it too much prominence, if anything. But I think where we are right now is the best compromise. 72Dino (talk) 04:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it actually belongs as either the second sentence of the first or second paragraph. That's one of those things which could be better. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this is one of those situations where you personally feel it is important and I personally feel it is not. That's why I think this compromise may be best.  Perhaps an RFC would expand the eyes looking at this article and bring some additional insight.  Anyway, that's my opinion.  Thanks, 72Dino (talk)`
 * WP:LEAD says that the lead is supposed to summarize the body. So it would probably be best for the lead to contain three paragraphs:  (1) overview/history/org;  (2) ministries; (3) policies/activities.   In the third paragraph would be the sentence:  "FOTF believes that marriage should be limited to man/woman."  Immediately following that sentence would be "Several organizations consider FOTF to be anti-gay ..." .   --Noleander (talk) 04:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not unreasonable. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And I actually can accept that, too. 72Dino (talk) 04:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What's been proposed here - and agreed to - is an awful lot like what I did yesterday. Just sayin'.  All I was really trying to do is the the sentence about SPLC out from between two unrelated sentences.  (I'm pretty sure they talked about that sort of thing in journalism class, no?)  Disregard that last comment, but try to capture the sentiment.  We're making progress here that could have been made yesterday, with a more collaborative attitude.  Let's see your ideas, guys.  Belchfire (talk) 04:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Good that the compromise has been worked out; just a little comment that may be helpful down the line to Still. Journalism school teaches ways of editing NEWS articles, including "if it bleeds it leads", etc. The editorial guidelines that seek to grab headlines and accentuate the outlandish are EXACTLY opposite of the editorial standards to be employed by an encyclopedia. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

To be frank, I'd really like to make forward progress on this article, but take a look at the article history and you'll see a battleground of false steps that had to be reverted. Rather than have a slow edit war, we should discuss the direction of the article here before making changes that are likely to get reverted anyhow. Consensus first, edit second, progress third. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:BRD was invented for a reason and the 'B' doesn't stand for 'before'. At this point, we've agreed that the lead is broken and needs a re-write.  We've agreed in principle to the basic structure.  I'd like to think we can agree that the notorious sentence about SPLC is logically out of place in its current location.  Good so far?  Belchfire (talk) 06:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * BRD is not working. Let's try DE (discuss and edit). Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * BRD works fine and it's the law of the land here. Go ahead and discuss, I just recapped where we are.  Belchfire (talk) 06:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Do I need to remind you that edit-warring is against the law of the land? And edit-warring is all BRD gets us on these controversial articles. As for recapping, I said DE, not DDDDDDD. We already discussed it. Noleander suggested a change and gained a consensus. The next step is for him to edit. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think he intends to do any editing, his role here was to get people talking to each other and be an umpire if needed, and anybody can edit the article. Now, would you like to discuss changes?  What are your proposals?  Belchfire (talk) 06:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I think editing would be much smoother if BRD were applied properly. It's supposed to avoid edit wars - it states that if an edit is contested (as indicated by a single revert), no further reverts should be made and the discussion should take place while the page reflects the previous version. Arc de Ciel (talk) 08:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the next step is for someone to create a 3 paragraph version of the lead (intro; ministries; policies) that summarizes the body of the article, per WP:LEAD. For example, the body of the article has a huge section on Ministries, yet the word "ministries" does not appear in the lead of the article. I personally don't plan to edit the article. I recommend that an interested editor create a draft version of the new lead, and place it here in the Talk page (before going into the article) so other editors can comment. --Noleander (talk) 12:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Belchfire seems eager to provide something, so let's allow him to. Then we can fix it so that it follows the rules. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've provided something already, and it follows the guidelines perfectly. Feel free to offer any alternative language you would like, and we can go from there.  For your convenience, I'll put my proposal right here where it's handy for you.
 * "Focus on the Family (FOTF or FotF) is an American tax-exempt, non-profit organization founded in 1977 by psychologist James Dobson, based in Colorado Springs, Colorado. A component of the Christian right, it is active in promoting interdenominational harmony and works toward its views on socially conservative public policy. Focus on the Family is one of a number of evangelical parachurch organizations that rose to prominence in the 1980s."


 * "Focus on the Family's stated mission is 'nurturing and defending the God-ordained institution of the family and promoting biblical truths worldwide.' The core promotional activities of the organization include a daily radio broadcast by Dobson and his colleagues, providing free resources and family counseling according to Focus on the Family views, and publishing magazines, videos, and audio recordings. The organization also produces programs for targeted audiences, such as Adventures in Odyssey for children, dramas, and Family Minute with James Dobson. Both Focus on the Family and Adventures in Odyssey are broadcast on Trans World Radio in the UK. Focus on the Family is also currently the primary sponsor for Phil Vischer's JellyTelly."


 * "Several organizations have listed Focus on the Family as an anti-gay group."


 * <tt>Belch fire </tt> 02:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to outdent so as to keep this readable. Here goes:
 * Focus on the Family (FOTF or FotF) is an American tax-exempt, non-profit organization founded in 1977 by psychologist James Dobson, based in Colorado Springs, Colorado. A component of the Christian right, it is active in promoting an interdenominational effort towards its socially conservative views on public policy. Focus on the Family is one of a number of evangelical parachurch organizations that rose to prominence in the 1980s.


 * Focus on the Family's stated mission is "nurturing and defending the God-ordained institution of the family and promoting biblical truths worldwide." The core promotional activities of the organization include a daily radio broadcast by Dobson and his colleagues, providing free resources and family counseling according to evangelical views, and publishing magazines, videos, and audio recordings. The organization also produces programs for targeted audiences, such as Adventures in Odyssey for children, dramas, and Family Minute with James Dobson. Both Focus on the Family and Adventures in Odyssey are broadcast on Trans World Radio in the UK. Focus on the Family is also currently the primary sponsor for Phil Vischer's JellyTelly.


 * Focus on the Family opposes abortion, divorce, gambling, gay rights, pornography, pre-marital sex, and recreational drugs. It supports abstinence, adoption by Christians, corporal punishment, creationism, school prayer, strong gender roles, and marriage of Christians only to other Christians.

Call this a rough draft. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Not too rough. We can call your first two paragraphs a done deal - there really isn't any difference.  But the last paragraph is simply a laundry list of things cherry-picked from the body of the article, which can be - and should be - summarized with more neutral language, if not eliminated altogether.  The lead up to that point already makes it clear that FotF supports a Biblical version of family values.  We have the rest of the article to spell out just what that entails.


 * And incidentally, the source provided in the article doesn't support the proposition that FotF tells Christians only to marry other Christians. (Which is not surprising, since the Bible doesn't say that either, to my knowledge.) That's not in the article any more.


 * So... in all candor, the lead you've written can easily survive without the third paragraph altogether, since it's just repeating in detail what was already stated in the second sentence. <tt>Belch fire </tt> 03:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Noleander's outline was "intro; ministries; policies", paralleling the structure of the article itself. That's the reason for the opposes/supports lists; they're the summary of the policies. As such, some version of this does belong as the third paragraph.
 * I'm not particularly concerned with the item about marrying only other Christians, although it's definitely in the Bible and I'm pretty sure I saw a source confirming that FotF makes a point of endorsing this. For now, we can drop it, but we'll put it back if I find that citation again.
 * I'd like to flesh out that third paragraph a bit, adding brief summaries of other policy-related items, such as how they use research. I'd like it to sound a little bit less like a laundry list, too. Any ideas? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, one more thing: we need to fix the second paragraph to reflect Dobson's departure. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Mmm, I don't think Dobson's exit is that important. What we have now only says Dobson founded it, and gives a date for that which is 35 years in the past.  The change in leadership is mentioned in the first section after the TOC, and Daly's name is right there in the Infobox.  Trying to work that into the lead is just going to clutter it up, IMO. <tt>Belch fire </tt> 04:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The second paragraph says that its activities "include a daily radio broadcast by Dobson". That's contradicted later on, so we shouldn't be saying it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * We just need to switch out the names is all. <tt>Belch fire </tt> 04:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Great, we can list "Jim Daly, Juli Slattery and John Fuller". Now, let's focus on the third paragraph, where we summarize policies. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's go with what we have. A third paragraph isn't needed and will only lead to POV issues.  Besides, the summary you are proposing to put in paragraph 3 is just a rehash of things already covered in paragraphs 1 and 2.  Let's wrap it up and be done.  <tt>Belch fire </tt> 05:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1st & 2nd paragraphs proposed are an improvment. Third para not needed. – Lionel (talk) 05:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that is not acceptable. Noleander's outline requires us to list the policies in the lead and I'm going to have to insist upon that. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Noleander gave us a road map, not a mandate. Going with what we have satisfies WP:MOSINTRO ("This allows editors to avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, since greater detail is saved for the body of the article.") and avoids the persistent POV problems that have plagued this process for nearly a week.  Lionel seems to concur.  Feel free to bring Noleander back in if you like.  <tt>Belch fire </tt> 05:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Unexplained changes to the lead.
Belchfire, would you please make your case for your recent changes? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I guess that's become irrelevant. Roscelese, I have no objections to your change. I'm all for reorganization to increase clarity. My problem with Belchfire's change is that he combined it with removal of material. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You already agreed to the removal of that verbiage. Now you edit-war to put it back in.  There is a word for this: "tendentious".


 * The above is unsigned by Belchfire. It's also false. I don't remember anyone agreeing to remove what he removed on his own, and I don't consider the R in BRD to be edit-warring. What I see in the edit history is that he keeps making changes against consensus and someone reverts them. This time it was me, and I'm ok with that. I'm not ok with his overall hostility, though. It's uncivil. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You seem to have a selective memory. You yourself suggested a new lead without that wording.  We agreed on this, then you reneged when you lost your second case at DRN, after you announced that you wouldn't abide by the result of the process you initiated.  Personally, I think that should justify a topic ban.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  19:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As you're fond of reminding me, DRN is not binding. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Consensus IS binding, and the DRN resulted in a consensus. How do you justify ignoring that?  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  20:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Consensus is binding, but DRN resulted in a false consensus. Not that it matters, because additional sources changed things. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

LOL. I get it. When consensus is against you, it's "false". Good grief. <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK 20:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I won't have any objections to a new DRN. Should we go ahead and request a new one to reach another consensus based on additional sources? ViriiK (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would anybody agree to DRN with Still? He won't honor the result if he disagrees with it.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  20:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, but let's count you, Viriik, Lionelt and Collect as one person. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Belch, I wouldn't jump to conclusions yet. I'm just saying that establishing a consensus would be a good idea though to establish precedence.  ViriiK (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Basis: "To protect against rigged decisions, editors participating due to questionable canvassing may be discounted when evaluating consensus." Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not jumping to a conclusion; it's the result of real-world, first-hand experience. Still won't honor a consensus and he won't honor his own word, so I won't waste my time seeking either.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  20:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Clearly, we disagree about what the consensus is and what constitutes a consensus. I don't see how the beliefs of a group of conservatives who ignore policy can ever be a consensus, no matter their numerical advantage due to stacking. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. You seem to think "consensus" means "I'm right".  4-1, 5-1, 6-1... that's not consensus, that's just voting.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  21:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

This shouldn't be surprising, but your summary of my views is incorrect. I've spoken out repeatedly against DRN's conflation of consensus with voting. But, hey, why let the truth mess with your WP:BATTLEGROUND? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Could both of you drop the sticks and step off? Focus just on improving the article, if the other does something tragic perhaps see if someone else catches it within a day or so. If you each take a breath and think about what the article will be like in a year or five years from now I think you can see that a lot of this discussion is just wasting energy of yourselves and each other. Insomesia (talk) 21:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. The article as it stands is fine, so there's nothing more to discuss unless someone can offer good reason to change it. Quibbles about how we got here are unproductive to entertain. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Still, you've already acknowledged that the consensus at DRN was against you. You can't declare it invalid unilaterally.  If you think it was "false consensus", the burden is on you to prove that and find somebody who agrees with you.  That hasn't happened, so you're just being stubborn and disruptive by ignoring a consensus that you don't like.  It really is time to just admit you lost and move on.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  21:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Lost". More WP:BATTLEGROUND thinking. So long as the article is of higher quality for my input, I've won. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, so saying that you "lost" an argument is "battleground" thinking, but saying that you "won" because you like the current version of the article isn't? Got it.    <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  19:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine, fine, if it makes you feel better, you can pretend you won something, ok? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 00:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Family Minute, with or without James Dobson
Just want to repeat what I said in an edit comment: it looks like the Family Minute has continued without Dobson. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding that and making the update. 72Dino (talk) 21:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. Always glad to work with you to improve the article. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

More lead edits
Unfortunately, Belchfire made some changes that go against the consensus here and have been refuted before by myself and others. I've been forced to revert these changes, so I'd like to briefly tie my edit to what's been discussed here.


 * 1) We're all agreed that "revisionist gay theology" does not belong in the lead. We have http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2005/spring/a-mighty-army#10 as a reliable source that FotF is considered anti-gay, and their own site stating that they oppose gay rights, so this is completely sewn up.
 * 2) While "bolster FotF's political agenda and idealogy" sounds very nice, it's not what our sources say. Our sources say, once again, that it's about being against gay rights.

Hope that explains why we needed a rollback here. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Reality check. You plus one other editor does not equal "we're all agreed".  And it's just bad form (not to mention ridiculous) to make the same statement in two consecutive sentences.  One or the other needs to go.


 * Not to mention... the article doesn't say what the source says. Neither one of those two sources say that FotF is anti-gay.  They just don't.  Why do you have such a problem with simple honesty?  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  05:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Which consecutive sentences do you consider redundant?
 * The SPLC, which is a reliable source, considers FotF anti-gay. Any questions? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You're half-right, the sentences aren't quite consecutive. No matter, this is some pretty stinky writing:

"Focus on the Family's stated mission is 'nurturing and defending the God-ordained institution of the family and promoting biblical truths worldwide.'[1] Focus on the Family opposes abortion, divorce, gambling, LGBT rights,[2][3][4] pornography, pre-marital sex, and substance abuse. It supports abstinence-only sexual education, adoption by Christians, corporal punishment, creationism, school prayer, and strong gender roles. It is regarded as an anti-gay group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Psychologists, psychiatrists, and social scientists have stated that FOTF misrepresented their scientific research in pursuit of anti-LGBT goals."


 * Now, of the 3 sources (2, 3 and 4), only one actually says that FotF is against gay rights. The problem, though, is that the rest of that sentence is all FotF's self-identified goals.  Only "LGBT rights", in the middle of the sentence, comes from elsewhere.  Sorta POV-pushy, dontcha think?  And it speaks volumes that you had to move a source from elsewhere in the paragraph to support that insertion when it was challenged.  So, you've taken a perfectly good sentence that we should all be able to agree on, and you've screwed it up by inserting your own agenda.  It needs to go.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  05:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, and you are dead wrong about something. SPLC is a reliable source for SPLC's opinion.  Nothing else.  We can say SPLC has FotF listed.  We can't say that FotF is anti-gay in Wikipedia's voice, just because SPLC has them listed.  That's wrong.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  05:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, you're half right: we really don't need to mention that the SPLC considers it anti-gay. Instead, we should say it directly. We have plenty of strong sources for this, including the SPLC. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Fine, but we need to attribute those opinions to their sources, just like the news media does. We can't say it in Wikipedia's voice.  That would be, you know, lying.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  06:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And by that logic, the lead to Earth should start with, "According to Neil deGrasse Tyson, Earth (or the Earth) is the third planet from the Sun." No, we don't have to attribute every verified statement of fact to its source, except by citing. If you disagree, go dig up a policy that supports you specifically. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a "verified statement of fact". It's the published opinion of a political pressure group.  The only fact is that the SPLC said it.  The policies are WP:V and WP:NPOV, and specifically, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. (Biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution.")  You should learn about them sometime, because you clearly don't understand them.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  06:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Except that it's not a biased statement to call FotF anti-gay. It's a simple fact, frequently stating in passing by newspapers and other reliable sources. Also, the SPLC is a non-profit that the FBI relies upon for identifying hate groups, so "political pressure group" is a bit of POV OR of your own, I'd say. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Lead change
The following change was just undone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Focus_on_the_Family&diff=507206521&oldid=507104132

Whether or not the "flow" of the current version is better (debatable) or not, the current version has two problems. The first that the claims of misrepresentation of science are simply that, claims. At least that is what "accused" means to me, which is what is used in the main body of the article. The second problem is that the current version appears to attribute the misrepresentation to the SPLC. While they may hold that view, the body of the article suggests that claim comes from other sources. Little green rosetta (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the current version attributes the accusations of misrepresentation to SPLC; it is clear that they are coming from scientists. And no, we're not going to treat it as just a "claim"; the scientists who produced the research have stated in no uncertain terms that it does not say what Focus claims it says. There's a tendency among POV-pushing WP editors to claim that all opinions are equally valid, but really, the authors of a study are actually more reliable as to its contents than a random advocacy group. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed^; it's not some random people who are saying that they've misrepresented studies - it's the authors of the studies themselves! --Scientiom (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the big problem with Rosetta's version is that it speaks of scientists criticizing. This makes it sound like they're movie critics. Even labeling it as criticism marks it as something we can ignore. The reality is that the scientists are stating authoritatively that their work is being misquoted and abused. We should say just that. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This reasoning is patently ridiculous. Of course the author of study is going to defend their work.  If you want an objective opinion on a piece of scientific literature, you don't go ask the author - that's why science uses peer review, which frequently shows that a study doesn't show what the author claims.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  16:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't understand the issue. FotF isn't attacking the scientists' work, it's misquoting and otherwise abusing it. These scientists are defending their work from intentional lies. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * lololol FotF propaganda is just like peer review! –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Cute straw man you've built there. So, you're saying that no scientist ever looks at another's data and draws different conclusions?  Hoo-kayyyy.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  16:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're saying FotF's bigots are scientists? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * First, from a process viewpoint, I think using terms like "propaganda" and "bigots" is not in keeping with the WP:TALK guideline about staying objective, so hopefully we can refrain from using terms like that on the talk page. I think the current lede does summarize the body of the article, which is its purpose.  The consensus was originally to have this content in the third paragraph and it was moved up somewhere along the line (I prefer it later), but the wording appears appropriate to me. 72Dino (talk)

I changed "criticized" to "stated". Rather bizarrely, this was reverted by changes mistakenly labeled as "minor".

I'm going to repeat what I said, since it was ignored. Wikipedia cannot call it criticism when authors complain that their work is being inaccurately summarized. That's not a criticism, it's a statement of fact. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems the term "stated" is neutral because that is what the scientists have done, they have stated there was misrepresentation. 72Dino (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree: "stated" is about as neutral as we can get. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Duplication in 2nd paragraph
A couple of items need to be addressed in the lead for concision. The paragraph says FOTF opposes pre-marital sex and supports abstinence, which amounts to the same thing. This paragraph also calls FOTF anti-gay twice (though if the next section were addressed first, this might be moot). Little green rosetta (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that they are. Abstinence may well refer to non-comprehensive sexual education. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 00:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The citation supporting the abstinence position appears to apply to pre-marital sex. 72Dino (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure. You're right that it starts off reading like it's a general thing, but the last couple of paragraphs make it very clear that it's all about the children. Maybe we could just change "abstinence" to "abstinence-only sex ed" or something, so that nobody else will have to scratch their heads, either. There's a distinction between espousing abstinence and demanding that sex ed be limited to it, so it's not redundant. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It turns out that FotF treats abstinence-only education as a separate issues, so you were right that the link above was intended to be against pre-marital sex. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 00:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * So do we agree that the multiple (sex) references are redundant? Little green rosetta (talk) 02:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I changed it, as above. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Anti-gay statement and references
The 2nd sentance says that FOTF oopposes "LGBT rights" with 2 references. Upon examination of those references, this is not an accurate claim. From those sources, one could say that FOTF is anti-gay marriage, but not anti-gay. FOTF could very well be "anti-gay" -- whatever that encompasses, but such characterizations in the lead should be avoided without references. Little green rosetta (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * First, as the FotF citation shows, the organization explicitly opposes what it calls "homosexual rights" as an ideology and movement. It is explicitly against gay rights.
 * Second, you don't need to oppose many specific rights in order to be rightly considered to be opposing rights for the group. That's why our sources routinely equate denying gays the right to marry who they love with being anti-gay.
 * Third, it is an uncontroversial fact that they're anti-gay. Nobody's even denying this. Some people just don't want to say it in as many words, but I don't know why. It's not like FotF is the least bit shy about being anti-gay. Why should we be more shy than they are? Reliable sources refer to FotF as anti-gay, so we must do the same. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 00:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * LGR is exactly right. Neither of the two sources support the claim.  Rewording is needed to reflect what the sources actually say.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  01:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We will not accept the words of self-published fringe sources at face value. I have reverted your trollish edit; reliable sources are clear about what FotF opposes. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * While you linked directly to the SPLC's page on anti-gay groups, which I definitely consider reliable on this subject, I don't see Focus on the Family listed as an anti-gay group on that page. While a quote from James Dobson is used in the explanation, Focus on the Family is conspicuously absent from the associated list. Arathald (talk) 02:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Try this. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If that's what you're using to support what you're saying, then make sure you cite it directly. If the page you cite doesn't support your claims, I (and the majority of readers) won't then go search around the entire website for it. Arathald (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources in the lead dont back up the statement. The sentance should be removed, or the references replaced. Little green rosetta (talk) 02:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The source I just linked backs it up directly. If you like, we can add it to the lead. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you please remove the other 2 links then? Little green rosetta (talk) 02:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please do, that's a good reliable source, so it should just about close this issue. Arathald (talk) 02:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It does close the issue, but we don't need to say the same thing in two consecutive sentences, and I shouldn't have to explain what's wrong with that to grown-ups. <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  02:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Still, do you have a link to a list with FOTF more recent than 2005? It looks like there have been changes since then (e.g., FRC is not listed as a hate group here). Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 04:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Reality check: does anyone suggest that FotF has gotten more gay-friendly since 2005? If not, then why should I waste time digging for more citations? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Although they are still probably on the list, some references have noted a change in this area with the leadership going from Dobson to Daly. Also, if we use that list then we should remove the Family Research Council designation as a hate group.  A more current reference than one 7 years old would be better. 72Dino (talk) 05:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

No, we should take a quick look at Family Research Council and notice that it links to http://iowaindependent.com/47947/groups-that-helped-oust-iowa-judges-earn-hate-group-designation, which confirms that FRC is a designated hate group as of 2010. It also links to http://splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/the-hard-liners, which mentions that the post-Dobson FotF is still anti-gay but is not quite as strident. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Adoption
Do any of the sources say that FOTF specifically only supports adoption by Christains? I find this to be a contentious claim and will remove the "Christain" part unless a source can be provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Little green rosetta (talk • contribs) 02:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You mean like this? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, something reliable. And something that matches the current text that implies FOTF only supports adoption by Chistians. The text right now can easily Infer that FOTF specifically excludes support of adoption by non Christains, which from just a brief search doesn't seem to be the case. Little green rosetta (talk) 12:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're not actually denying that the source is reliable, you're claiming that, in order to favor adoption by Christians, FotF has to oppose adoption by non-Christians. I don't know why you would think that. As the cite shows, FotF tells Christians that they have a special duty to adopt. This is clear evidence that they favor adoption by Christians. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 12:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I dug up http://www.focusonlinecommunities.com/blogs/Finding_Home/2011/03/02/will-christian-adoption-be-banned, which is by the post-Dobson president of FotF and I think I understand the confusion. FotF isn't just in favor of adoption by Christians, they're in favor of Christian adoption. Christian adoption does include encouraging Christians in specific to adopt but it also includes excluding undesirables, such as gay couples, from adopting. There you have it. I'll go ahead and replace "adoption by Christians" in the article with "Christian adoption", and I'll add this cite. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a blog. The statement seems (to me) to exclude supporting adoption by non-Christains.  Now if you were to say something like "adoption by non-Gays" there would be plenty of RS to back that up.  However the fact that FOTF is "anti-gay" is already in the lead. Little green rosetta (talk) 12:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a reliable source. This "blog" is published by FotF and the byline is their president.
 * If you read it, you will see that "Christian adoption" is a term like "Christian marriage": it refers to the (evangelical) Christian view of how something should be done. So, for example, Christian adoption excludes gays. It may indeed exclude non-Christians; they don't say that in as many words, but do clearly say they support laws allowing discrimination based on religion.
 * Again, read the source and all will become clear. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

At this point, I'm going to have to politely ask you to stop editing this out of the article. I've explained why it's correct, refuting your claim that we lacked a reliable source. You don't have to agree, but you do have to get out of the way. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to be firm and ask that you (or someone) find a RS that matches the statement, or change the statement. I can't find a source.  The statement can be easily interpreted to read "Christian only".  FOTF works with adoption agencies throughout the country.  While they certainly do support Christians to adopt, it is not limited to Christains only. Little green rosetta (talk) 13:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As I've already explained, Christian adoption has two meanings that are fully supported:
 * 1) They support adoption by Christians as a specifically Christian duty.
 * 2) They support adoption based on Christian "moral and religious beliefs". This definitely means excluding gays, it may well mean excluding non-Christians. The same stated basis is used, for example, by Catholic churches to refuse to perform weddings for non-Catholics.
 * Regardless, the fact that you personally believe that Christian adoption must mean adoption only by Christians is not binding to any of us. It's your error alone. And if you don't fix this, I will escalate to WP:NPOVN. Cheers. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 13:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please escalate, I think more opinions will be helpful. Little green rosetta (talk) 13:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It turns out that the "moral and religious beliefs" thing has indeed been used to deny adoption on the basis of the couple's religious beliefs. It follows that support for laws that have this this clause automatically includes support for denying atheists adoption. Of course, I'm not going to say this in as many words as that would be synthesis, but if someone read "Christian adoption" to mean "adoption for only Christians", they would not be factually wrong. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 13:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

At this point, it has become clear that Rosetta is unfamiliar with the content of the sources this article uses. Therefore, their conclusions do not comply with Wikipedia policy and cannot be given full weight. In plain English, they objectively lack merit. If Rosetta rejects the consensus and wishes to escalate, they are free to do so. They are, however, not free to WP:FILIBUSTER. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Please escalate, I think more opinions will be helpful" is not filibustering. When I think of filibusterng, Little green rosetta does not come to mind: another editor does.– Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 05:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, look, it's Mr. Neutral and he's here to incite trouble. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of research
The lead says that FOFT misrepresented scientific research in support of anti-LGBT goals. This is postulating, because the priamry sources did not say this, nor did the secondary sources. Little green rosetta (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? Did you read the sources in the section on misrepresentation on research? If so, what reason did they offer? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Psychologists, psychiatrists, and social scientists have stated that FOTF misrepresented their scientific research to bolster FotF's political agenda and idealogy. certainly is more true to the sources than Psychologists, psychiatrists, and social scientists have stated that FOTF misrepresented their scientific research in pursuit of anti-LGBT goals.

The first statment is an accurate description of what the sources stated. The second statement is speculative. Little green rosetta (talk) 13:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If we were speculating, you might have a point, but we're not, so you don't. Our sources state that this is part of the misrepresentation is for the purpose of serving anti-LGBT goals. But, as far as I can tell, you haven't read any of these sources, so your opinion is arbitrary and must therefore be disregarded.
 * Or you could prove me wrong: read the sources and tell me what motive they specify. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 13:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's quite possible I might have missed it, but please provide a direct quote of the actual text from the souces that back such a claim, along with the reference. Otherwise we are just going in circles.  Little green rosetta (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you missed it, it could only be due to not reading it at all. Here are some obvious parts from the very first source:
 * Experts say Dobson's Time column distorted their research to denounce same-sex parents
 * Indeed, as Media Matters noted at the time, Pruett had previously reportedly criticized people for "distorting his work" to advance their political agenda.
 * "Not only did you take my research out of context, you did so without my knowledge to support discriminatory goals that I do not agree with."
 * "I was startled and disappointed to see my work referenced in the current Time Magazine piece in which you opined that social science, such as mine, supports your convictions opposing lesbian and gay parenthood"
 * "You cherry-picked a phrase to shore up highly (in my view) discriminatory purposes."
 * "In raising these issues, Focus on the Family does not desire to harm or insult women such as Cheney and Poe. Rather, our conviction is that birth and adoption are the purview of married heterosexual couples."
 * Again, that's just the first source, and just off the top of my head. There are about a half dozen more sources, each with plenty of lines indicating that the goal of the distortion is to support anti-LGBT policies. But, hey, you obviously never read it, so just take my word for it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've read every one of the refs linked in the body, and not one of the primary sources mentions "anti-gay". Of course I'm willing to belive I may have missed it somewhere.  If you are unwilling to at least point me to the actual text, I plan on restoring the edit as it more accurately describes what is attributed to the primary source.  Little green rosetta (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not convinced that you looked at the sources at all; this is getting tiresome. Please look at them. Even the titles of the first three sources in the misrepresentation section allude to FotF being anti-gay. A source does not have to explicitly use the exact same phrase for Wikipedia to use it. It is perfectly fine for Wikipedia to use a summary term that objectively describes describes the view of the sources, provided that the view is attributed properly and not stated in Wikipedia's voice. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What makes you think I haven't read the sources? That is not AGF, especially after I already said I did.  In any case, you are correct that an article doesn't have to use exact phrasing from sources.  However the twisting the words of the source to support a POV is not acceptable.  Little green rosetta (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What makes me think that, you ask? Repeated assertions that the sources don't describe FotF's misrepresentations as being as anti-gay, when they clearly and obviously do describe the misrepresentations that way, suggest that the sources haven't actually been examined. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you are confusing two sepearte issues. In an issue above, related to FOTF being labeled "anti-gay" two sources CLEARLY did not state anything of the sort.  Still (or someone else) found a new source that did.  That was added, and I removed the sources that were incorrectly attributed.  I don't think anyone has a problem with this now.  This issue (misreprentation of research by FOTF) is a completly different matter.  Little green rosetta (talk) 20:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I am not confusing two separate issues. I am referring to the characterization of the misrepresentation of sources, not how FotF is to be labeled, which, as you correctly point out, is being discussed in another section.
 * Your ignorance of the sources is exceeded only by your obstinate refusal to accept what they say once it's pointed out to you. I can WP:AGF, but that doesn't grant WP:COMPETENCE.
 * Our sources strongly support the designation of anti-gay, both as a concept and as that particular phrase. For example, one article is entitled, "Apple Asked to Stop Supporting Anti-Gay, Anti-Women Groups like Focus on the Family".
 * There is no twisting involved in calling things as they are. It is no more POV to call FotF "anti-gay" than to call Hitler "antisemitic". This is what the reliable sources say, this is what the consensus says. If you disagree, that is unfortunate, but Wikipedia requires us to competently examine the sources. If you don't have the time or ability, then your opinion will have to be disregarded in order for us to follow Wikipedia policy correctly. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest you only accuse editors of incompetence when clearly obvious. Your usage here could ne construed as a personal attack and Little green rosetta is within their rights to report you to WP:WQA. – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 05:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, right, and you're a neutral party just being helpful? You're transparent. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Stop. Are you posting in the right section?  This section is about Misrepresentation of research FOTF misrepresenting scientifc research and for what purposes FOTF misused the research.  It is not about FOTF being labeled anti-gay, that is (or was) for another section on this talk page. And I would like to remind you to please be civil.Little green rosetta (talk) 20:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I support the change of the sentence in the lead to say "...FOTF misrepresented their scientific research to bolster FotF's political agenda and idealogy" (although "ideology" is misspelled). That is a true statement providing a good overview of the body text, and doesn't need to be overly specific since FotF's misrepresentations likely cover more ground than simply being anti-LGBT. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Spelling has never been my strong point. In any case the lead should be concise and factual enough to stand on its own.  We don't need to tag the whole lead (or article for that matter) with "anti-gay".  Balance is key. Little green rosetta (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It looks like that change has been reverted. As I don't wish to EW, I'll kindly wait for Roscelese to what she means by not per the sources. Amatulic and I seem to agree with the edit. Since Still apparently can't or won't state exactly where the sources back up the current edit, his opinion doesn't matter, but perhaps Roscelese can. Little green rosetta (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I note that FotF has engaged in other distortions of research, not just research pertaining to gay issues. Here's one: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2006/08/09/6792/focus-family-stem-cells/ ~Amatulić (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Good find. I'll see if I can find an RS and add this to the body. Little green rosetta (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I reverted because it was weirdly cagey and appeared to be in line with the general trend recently of vainly attempting to pretend FotF isn't anti-gay, and also because the sources are clear about what FotF misused the science for. If RS on their misrepresentation of other research is added (I would be very much not surprised if they've also misrepresented research on abortion and contraception), I'm fine with the broader statement, but based on what we have right now, I would at least add a clause "particularly opposition to LGBT rights" or similar. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So your reversion was somewhat dishonest, as your summary made other claims. Please dont do that.  And adding the clause you suggest could appear to some to be a "vain attempt" to tag FOTF as some appear to be trying to do as first and foremost an anti-gay organization.  Let's not be undue anywhere, but especially in the lead.  Even if the extra misrepresentation were not found the sources as they currently exist don't support the previous diff.  Little green rosetta (talk) 03:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert, but I think that accusing her of dishonesty is a violation of WP:AGF, no to mention WP:WPA. In any case, you're factually wrong. The version she reverted to is correct and fully supported by our sources. The version Amatulic prefers makes sense if we have additional sources to show that FotF lies about academic papers for purposes other than gay-bashing. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

They sold Love Won Out
Since they sold Love Won Out there is no need to keep criticism from more than 3 years ago of FOTF which resulted from their operation of LWO. This includes the APA and medical stuff which is only there to refute the help LWO provides for those wanting to leave homosexuality and become ex-gay. The APA report "exgay.pdf" belongs in the LWO article---not here. A little surprised that Still re-added outdated and off-topic content but I am sure now that it has been explained to him he will revert. – Lionel (talk) 04:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * They sold it, yes, but they founded it. It's part of their history forever and it's not as if they got rid of it because they changed their minds. It was, according to them, a financial decision. For these reasons, I feel strongly that this belongs. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting. ViriiK didn't bother explaining himself here but he reverted anyhow. That was poorly done. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Feel free to read the edit summaries. They go a long ways!  ViriiK (talk) 05:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * An edit summary is not a replacement for participating in this discussion. Moreover, the reason you offered has been refuted at the time of your edit, and you've offered no attempt at a counter-argument. In short, you are edit-warring. I don't recommend this. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The edit comment he made was "It is indeed outdated and belongs in the LWO article." The second part is a side issue, so I'll put it on the back burner for now. The first part is simply wrong. Originally, it claimed that LWO was still a part of FotF. I updated it to reflect that FotF founded and then sold LWO, so now it's not outdated anymore. Now, if you have an argument that hasn't already been refuted, this might be a good time to share it. Otherwise, my citations beat your WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The criticism of the gay activists and the medical junk follows Love Won Out--it doesn't stay in this article. A brief mention that at one time they operated LWO and a wikilink for more info is the most this item deserves. Anything more is a violation or WP:COATRACK.– Lionel (talk) 06:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a bizarre notion. Why shouldn't the criticism apply to the founders? Is there any reason at all to believe that selling LWO involved repudiating it? Your original stated reason was that the sentence was outdated. It was, and I fixed. Now, you appear to be grasping at straws. Please come up with more persuasive arguments and build a consensus, instead of edit-warring. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Look. You may not yet realize this yet but your position is weak, unsustainable and untenable. Are you really gonna make the editors here spend time on this? – Lionel (talk) 07:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Edit-warring? Absurd.  I simply disagree with your notion and did agree with the assessment of Lionet.  The fact that you want to accuse me of edit-warring was not warranted.  Since you like to demand apology when you play the victim card, how about you apologize?  Am I going to play WP:CRYSTAL and predict some answer that will avoid one?  As for my reversion, I gave the reasoning (my own judgment off the record) was that it gave too much WP:UNDUE since it would give any reader the impression that they are still involved.  A small mention is necessary just in the similar fashion of the Lauber incident which you wanted the whole thing and wanted to increase the size by a certain amount.  ViriiK (talk) 07:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the fact that you got the page protected is a pretty clear indication that you were edit-warring. Now, let's move past that and focus on a productive discussion of this content issue. I'm doing my part. Do yours. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you accusing me now of requesting the lock? You stalk my edit history but did you see any contribution history of requesting page protection?  Vast Conspiracy here!  Penwhale admitted he did it himself (However judging by the page protection request page, Belchfire did that.  I guess we have telepathy!  Go tell the world, we have a breakthrough in the evolution of the human race!).  ViriiK (talk) 07:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't care to discuss this right now, because it distracts from the issue at hand, which is your obligation to justify deleting the words I copied below. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course you don't care. You lied to me twice now 1) For edit-warring 2) claiming that I requested page protection.  I gave my input and that's it.  I felt it was WP:UNDUE and it still is.  Thank you.  ViriiK (talk) 07:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Tell you what, I'll respond to these two items if you'll respond to the item below. I'll even go first.
 * 1) You were edit-warring. Penwhale protected the page because of it. A little bit later, Belchfire requested page protection because of it.
 * 2) You didn't request it, you caused it. Belchfire requested it, although by then it was redundant to do so.
 * Ok, I did my part. Now please scroll to the bottom and explain why you cut these sentences. Ok? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What is ironic is that Still is at 2RR on this article--more than anyone else. Putting "Restoring but with corrections" in an edit sum is not an excuse to edit war. – Lionel (talk) 07:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you say that, as it's untrue. I'm not even at 1RR. The "Restoring but with corrections" isn't a reversion, it's cooperative editing; I fixed the error that you pointed out. But, hey, if you want to falsely accuse me of edit-warring, I'll probably just laugh it off. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You have 685 edits. I have that many edits just at AN3. But what the heck--if you say you're not at 1RR---who am I to disagree, hahahaha!!!! – Lionel (talk) 08:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Here, let me help. This is what was cut:
 * The group's message has been controversial. In particular, those who support gay rights, including some educational, medical, and mental health organizations, have criticized the organization for its stance on homosexuality and related legislation and for founding the Love Won Out ministry, an ex-gay movement now part of Exodus International.
 * Please explain how this is undue. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * (ViriiK, your response goes here. Go for it.) Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This source is dated 2007. This source is speaking specifically about Love Won Out. It was only in this article because FOTF owned LWO. Love Won Out was sold in 2009. All we need to adequately cover this is a brief mention and a wikilink. You can disagree all you want. We'll see what the consensus says... – Lionel (talk) 07:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank your for answering, unlike Viriik, but this is a combination of false and irrelevant.
 * 1) The source is from 2007. Yes, and? That's just 5 years ago, while FotF is 35 years old. LWO is 14 years old, and was part of FotF until 3 years ago. What's changed? Has FotF suddenly become pro-gay?!
 * 2) It is still true that FotF's message has been controversial. In fact, it's something of an understatement. I could drown you in citations.
 * 3) It is still true that gay rights supporters (including SPLC, which is cited) criticize FotF for its stance on homosexuality and related laws. It's cited.
 * 4) It is still true that FotF founded LWO, an ex-gay ministry that it sold to Exodus International. This is also cited.
 * In short, every part of this is true, relevant and well-cited. None of it is outdated or undue. You have nothing that might even begin to persuade a reasonable person. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting that you have side stepped the main issue that this content is specifically related and dependent upon LWO--and LWO has been sold. This substantially reduces the relevancy of this source; to the point where it is WP:UNDUE. You just don't get it. As more editors pop in maybe they'll be able to better explain it to you.– Lionel (talk) 08:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Btw this is Wikipedia: we could care less about the WP:truth.– Lionel (talk) 08:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's flatly incorrect. I pointed out in item (1) that LWO was sold. I also pointed out that its sale was not a repudiation of ex-gay ministry, just a financial transaction. After that, I pointed out that everything still applied to FotF, even with LWO gone, and there's no shortage of citations to make this verifiable.
 * Do you dispute this? If so, point out what, in specific, doesn't apply. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Still's argument regarding this being part of the FoF history and thus relevant. It should be clear that it's been sold off and why, but historical information shouldn't be removed simply because it was sold. This would essentially allow an organization to whitewash its history as far WP is concerned. Sædon <sup style="color:#000000;">talk 08:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The above is by User:Belchfire, unsigned. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * According to WP:CANVAS, notification is appropriate when scale is limited (I posted to one page), the message is neutral (I asked for more eyes), the audience is nonpartisan (anyone with an interest in homosexuality), and the transparency is open (the post was plainly visible). In short, any claim of canvassing here is false. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The more editors involved the better. You might as well say that I'm canvassing by starting an RFC.  Ridiculous.  Deal with the issues, not wikilaw.  Sædon <sup style="color:#000000;">talk  09:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's just a little transparency, please don't view it as hostile. <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  09:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry but it is hard to see what purpose it would serve except to discredit my view by pointing to a supposed policy violation as the reason I'm here (though as Still pointed out, his message was perfectly fine according to WP:CANVASS). 99% of the times I see someone bring up canvassing it is not because actual canvassing was going on (i.e. a non-neutral request to people you know are going to support you).  I'm the first new editor to this conversation but due to the RFC there will be 5-15 more - what does it matter how we got here so long as experienced editors are chiming in on the page?  I accept that you did it for good reasons but I would appreciate it if you would  the entire canvassing conversation - all it does is distract from the issue. If you really believe inappropriate canvassing took place I implore you to bring it up at a noticeboard.   Sædon <sup style="color:#000000;">talk  09:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting response. You allow the template was placed for good reason, yet assert that no policy was violated.  Which is it? (That's semi-rhetorical, no real need to answer.)  Surely you understand the very clear difference between a RfC and an off-topic solicitation placed on a hand-picked Talk page, no?
 * There is a fine line here. Of course, I emphatically do not object to your presence.  I do think others should be aware of how you were brought here, if they care to know.  They can decide for themselves if it matters to them, and I will let you take care of your own credibility.  Do take note, I have not yet expressed a view in the disagreement that is being WP:VOTESTACKED.  In fact, at this point I am agnostic about the outcome.  But I won't be hatting the CANVAS template.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  10:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I meant intentions, not reasons, wrong word. There is absolutely nothing in WP:CANVASS to justify your remarks and you have fallen in the trap of reading guideline titles as opposed to the actual guidelines.  Editors are free to draw attention to other pages in a neutral manner - that's not canvassing, it's how WP is supposed to work.  Sædon <sup style="color:#000000;">talk  11:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

My change summary was wrong. There was another paragraph that got cut for no justifiable reason:


 * The American Psychological Association and the Royal College of Psychiatrists expressed concerns that the positions espoused by Focus on the Family are not supported by the science and create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish.

Note that all of this applies to FotW, regardless of owning LWO. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

RFC
See above discussion for background. Briefly, this dispute focuses on whether the article should contain historical information (and how much) about a controversial ex-gay ministry called Love Won Out that was owned by FoF but then sold. My understanding is that the ministry was sold for financial reasons and not because FoF disavowed the message. The specific edit in question is here. Sædon <sup style="color:#000000;">talk 08:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Threaded RFC discussion

 * Keep: LWO is part of FoF history, and five years ago is certainly not a long time.  Miniapolis  ( talk ) 13:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: As 1-2 sentences in the history section. 72Dino (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: as a brief mention, 1 sentence.– Lionel (talk) 04:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - One or 2 sentences. --Noleander (talk) 12:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: As a brief mention in history. I specifically checked articles other companies/organizations, and they generally (but not always) include a mention of spin-offs. I'm not sure the criticism of LWO should be mentioned more than in passing, though, as that belongs in LWO's article (though I wouldn't be opposed to a mention here, since it's frankly one of the things that makes LWO notable and thus worth including here). Arathald (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Since there seems to be a clear consensus for keeping it, I've restored the sentence that mentions it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I revised the sentence wording and moved it to the History section. 72Dino (talk) 03:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw, and I'm not wild about it.
 * I don't have a problem with breaking LWO out into the history section, particularly the details of when it was founded and sold. I do have a problem with removing the entire segue that it was part of. I'd recommend restoring a slightly truncated version:
 * The group's message has been controversial. In particular, those who support gay rights, including some educational, medical, and mental health organizations, have criticized the organization for its stance on homosexuality and related legislation, and for founding Love Won Out.
 * This doesn't repeat the Exodus stuff, but it keeps the citation to SPLC, which is important, and provides an overview that makes what follows fit in. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I endorse 72Dino's version, based on sound reasoning. LWO is history, put it with the rest of the history.  The bridge is replaceable, but probably wasn't needed anyway.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  03:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're mistaken. Among others things, the SPLC citation is required to support the SPLC mention in the lead. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The lead doesn't support the body, it's the other way around. And besides, we took SPLC out of the lead by consensus.  In fact, it was your idea.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  04:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep all but consider footnoting some if due weight is a concern. FotF holds some extreme views opposed by mainstream national and international organizations and this is their history. If they change their stance markedly then not how they have changed. Insomesia (talk) 08:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Part of the history of the organization. KillerChihuahua ?!? 15:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Obvious Keep it brief  little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 19:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep the required information but no more. Considering the LWO was created and operated by FOF for a significant period of time, it is a part of FOF's history. Having said that, if it has its own article, WP:SS would seem to apply. So, a short summary section on LWO would seem called for, as well as at least any criticism of both LWO and FOF while it was a part of the latter, and possibly some of the basic criticism of LWO as well. But most of such content probably belongs more specifically in the LWO article. By the way, I think it probably is still generally the case that !votes are put in a separate "response" section or similar, with only other comments on sources, the comments of others, etc., placed in the "Discussion" section. John Carter (talk) 21:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Remove or limit, as they do not own it at the present time. --Nouniquenames (talk) 01:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that's relevant. They still endorse its views, and only sold it off for monetary reasons (according to them). I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

NPOV editing please
I just saw this diff by ViriiK removing a blatant POV edit. Thank you for that. FOTF doesn't like teh gay. We all get that. But we can't SAY that. We have to examine our sources, and use them in a netural and accurate manner. Everyone has a POV, but regardless of what side of the fence you straddle, please try and step outside yourself and observe your edits as an uninterested party. Pretend you are an asexual Martian if that helps, but find something. Little green rosetta (talk) 13:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course we can say it. FotF says it constantly and we have many, many reliable sources that back this up, including primary sources. There's nothing POV about letting FotF say what it means. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 13:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I hate to Godwin, but read the lead on Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot. Those are fine examples on how articles can have a NPOV on unsavory subjects like genocidal bastards.  Surely we can acheive the same thing for allegedly God-fearing homophobes, no? Little green rosetta (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, you mean like this?
 * The origin and first expression of Hitler's antisemitism have been difficult to locate. Hitler states in Mein Kampf that he first became an antisemite in Vienna.
 * We don't shy away from calling him antisemitic. Why would you have us shy away from calling FotF anti-gay? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We rely on the sources to label FOTF. You seem to have made several POV edits that mischaracterize what the sources say, as you did in the above mentioned diff.  We do not put spin on sources to reflect our own personal views. We must try and accurately reflect what the sources say, and in a neutral manner. Little green rosetta (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The primary source, FotF's position that "We strenuously disagree with pro-gay revisionist theology as plainly contradictory to Scripture, historic and traditional Christian doctrine and the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic" is probably as close as they come to outright calling themselves anti-gay. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We do not need to rely on the primary source for this. There are plenty of more reliable secondary sources that openly call FotF anti-gay, often in as many words. Ultimately, what Rosetta calls POV edits are nothing of the sort. They're simply edits that comply with our sources. Ignorance of the sources, or irrational rejection of their content, is no excuse for false accusations of POV pushing. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * When you use a reference from a primary source that says "2+2=4" and conflate that to say "2-(-2)=4", while you are being factually correct you are pushing a POV (use subtraction instead of addition). This is exactly what you did with the diff that ViriiK reverted.  Little green rosetta (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know exactly what you think you're saying, but that's a terrible argument. In fact, WP:CALC states outright that routine calculations of this sort are not WP:OR. What makes this argument worse is that we're not calculating anything at all: we're using the exact same phrase as our sources. As a result, your argument is flatly unpersuasive. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:BALANCE is definitely not the key, WP:NEUTRALITY is and the two aren't equivalent. In case you are not aware, neutrality on Wikipedia doesn't mean being balanced, nor unbiased, rather neutrality is a bias towards reliable sources. If an RS says X we report X whether editors agree with X or not. Odd metaphor btw, because mathematically those are equivalent statements and it literally makes no difference whether expressed as subtraction or addition (though one might be slightly easier to read for some people).   Sædon <sup style="color:#000000;">talk  21:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I never mentioned balance in this section, different issue. But I do agree with we go with what the sources say. My example was a simple way of showing two POVs that are different sides of the same coin. Little green rosetta (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thinkpreogress reference
X, can you find a better source than ThinkProgress? I don't think most will agree they are a RS. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 03:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. You win the prize for noticing the biased source. I plan to circle back with better sourcing shortly. I'm working on laptop right now so it's a little challenging to do proper editing. – MrX 03:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Try editing with a tablet. Economy of words.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 03:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Southern Poverty Law Center
An 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 16:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC: the term "traditional marriage" is not neutral when used in U.S.-specific context
a RFC arguing that the term "traditional marriage", as used in discussions of marriage in western, predominantly/historically christian, countries -- and, specifically, the United States -- is not a neutral term and should not be used without explanation/contextualization, has been logged on the Traditional marriage Talk page.

when it is used by advocates such as Focus on the Family, the term "traditional marriage" is not a neutral term, as it refers to the evangelical christian concept of "traditional marriage", which is between one man and one woman -- usually permenantly, until death. globally, however, there are myriad forms of "traditonal marriage"... therefore, it is imperative that wikipedia -- as a global, neutral source -- specify precisely what is meant when the phrase "traditional marriage" is used to advance a very narrow point-of-view, which implies that orthodox christian marriage is the "default", "normal" and "immutable" familial arrangement for all...

the meaning and connotations of the phrase "traditional marriage" when used by advocates such as the Focus on the Family is only self-evident to those who live in cultures where the term "traditional" equals a very specific understanding of "christianity"... if this article -- and any other article that refer to "traditional marriage" where what is meant is a "traditional christian definition of marriage" -- is to be truly neutral and universally understood, it is imperative that the term "traditional marriage" either be explained/contextualized, or replaced by an alternate term, such as:


 * traditional Christian definition of marriage
 * orthodox Christian definition of marriage

note that the term "orthodox Christian definition of marriage", might be an acceptable neutral alternative, as there are an ever-increasing number of christian denominations who have expanded their understanding of marriage...

the wikipedia entry for "traditional marriage" provides a rock-solid basis for a wiki-wide consideration of a nomenclature change/clarification when the term "treaditional marriage" is used in a U.S.-specific context... oedipus (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Wayne Besen as a source for facts rather than as a source for his opinion
Before continuing the debate over "misrepresented research" versus "accused of misrepresenting research," perhaps we should tackle the problem of using gay rights activist and anti-Focus on the Family polemicist Wayne Besen as an RS for FACTS about Focus on the Family. Let's do the easy stuff first. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine, but his bio states that he us a journalist. What evidence can you present that he is a polemicist, and if so, how does that precludes him from presenting facts about FotF or any other organization. - MrX 20:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ummh, his Wiki bio describes him as a former journalist. If you want evidence that he is now primarily a polemicist, and an anti-FOTF polemicist at that (of course, there's nothing wrong with being a polemicist, except we try to avoid using them as sources for facts in Wikipedia) just read his two columns currently being used as "reliable sources" here. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC) PS: I remember when Jerry Kammer, a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter, was barred from being used as a "reliable source" (and not just for facts but for opinions too) for the article on the Southern Poverty Law Center because he was currently working for the Center for Immigration Reform which the SPLC had named a hate group.
 * I think a more reasonable position would be to evaluate the credibility of the publications, rather than the attitude or motives of the journalist/activist who wrote the articles. The San Francisco Bay Times is probably not a particularly reliable source, as far as I can tell. PR Newswire certainly is not. I would not object to these sources being removed from the article, but other editors might disagree. - MrX 00:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The Besen pieces fail Wikipedia's standards for being reliable sources for facts on a variety of grounds. One is a blog entry in an anti-FOTC website (TruthWinsOut) run by Besen himself, the other is an opinion column in a gay rights newspaper. Narrativesuch as "Dobson's group is a fib factory that should change its name to Focus on Fallacies" and "bearing false witness is his (James Dobson's) modus operandi" puts these articles in the political polemic category. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Misrepresented vs. accused of misrepresenting
Editor has asserted that this edit is needed for neutrality. I, and at least one other editor, disagree. I invite the IP to discuss their reasoning here. - MrX 17:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The article does not show that FOTF has often misrepresented research. A few discussed single incidents cannot lead to such a conclusion presented as a matter of fact. 80.131.113.189 (talk) 03:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you arguing that the author of a study is not a reliable source as to its actual content, or that at least seven separate scientists calling FOTF out on it aren't enough? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * These sources were mentioned to cover those single incidents, not the critical statement we talk about. It is not clarified that FOTF has often misrepresented research in order to bolster its own perspective. -80.131.113.189 (talk) 04:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * But that's not what your edit did. If you think we should avoid making a general statement, you should suggest wording that reduces generalization, instead of inserting wording that converts a fact into an opinion. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Moreover, a polemicist such as Wayne Besen writing in gay rights newspapers isn't a reliable source for factual information. I notice that he's used here a couple of times. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no question that the FOTF often misrepresented research. MilesMoney (talk) 06:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * All of the resources are stated in the form of an accusation of misrepresentation. This is a clear example of WP:YESPOV WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:NPOV.  This is a core pillar which must be upheld.  It doesn't really matter if you think that there is "no question that the FOTF often misrepresented research".  It really doesn't matter what you think about it.  Arzel (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Evidently, several editors disagree with you, so now is an opportunity for you to convince enough of us to establish a new consensus. - MrX 19:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ...or, I guess you could just edit war and hope that that works. - MrX 19:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It's true that there have been accusations. However, it's also true that the accusations are true. Why are we shy about saying it? MilesMoney (talk) 03:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:TRUTH We are not here to right wrongs.  The authors claim they are being misrepresented, it is not for WP to validate that claim.  It is simply for us to state that claim.  Arzel (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)