Jump to content

Talk:Family Research Institute: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Reverted edits by Celtsmote (talk) to last version by 72Dino
Cewbot (talk | contribs)
Bots
7,351,040 edits
m Maintain {{WPBS}}: 7 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 6 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Discrimination}}, {{WikiProject LGBT studies}}, {{WikiProject Christianity}}, {{WikiProject Politics}}, {{WikiProject Conservatism}}, {{WikiProject Organizations}}.
 
(28 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
|maxarchivesize = 70K
|maxarchivesize = 70K
|counter = 5
|counter = 1
|minthreadsleft = 3
|minthreadsleft = 3
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
Line 8: Line 8:
|archive = Talk:Family Research Institute/Archive %(counter)d
|archive = Talk:Family Research Institute/Archive %(counter)d
}}
}}
{{talk header}}
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Discrimination|class=start|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Discrimination|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject LGBT studies}}
{{LGBTProject |class=Start}}
{{WikiProject Christianity}}
{{WikiProject Family and relationships}}
{{WikiProject Politics|class=|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Conservatism}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Organizations}}
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Organizations|importance=low}}
}}
}}
{{notforum}}
{{Not a forum}}
{{controversial}}
{{controversial}}


Line 24: Line 25:
I would like to see a source for the last remark. Yes, they are very politicized but please back up your statements.
I would like to see a source for the last remark. Yes, they are very politicized but please back up your statements.


== Recent edits and NPOV ==
== External links modified ==


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


I have just modified one external link on [[Family Research Institute]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=802733594 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
#Changing "The Family Research Institute is designated an anti-gay hate group by the nonprofit civil rights organization" to "The Family Research Institute is designated an anti-gay hate group by the left-leaning political organization". I would not argue that left-leaning is wrong, but removing "nonprofit civil rights..." removes factual information. Some have previously suggested adding "advocacy" after the phrase civil rights.
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090217192921/http://www.familyresearchinst.org/index.html to http://www.familyresearchinst.org/index.html
#Suggestions that there were disagreement with Paul Cameron's research, when in actuality, the sources state that his research was discredited.
#Addition of "This designation is rejected by the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission which complains that groups like SPLC have an "absurd standard they apply when creating their hate list". sourced to [http://defendchristians.org/tag/family-research-institute/ defendchristians.org]. As far as I know, this organization is not recognized as authoritative on this subject. If they are, we would need tertiary sources to indicate it.
#[[WP:UNDUE|UNDUE]] biographical information about Paul Cameron that is self-serving to the subject, much of which is sourced from his own web site.
# Replacing sourced content about FRI's hate group listing with their own repudiation of the APA and other respected organizations.


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
I invite Yeoberry to discuss why these edits should remain in the article. - [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 22:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
:I agree with you, MrX - I reverted Yeoberry too. Yeoberry, I hope you'll join us here instead of continuing to edit-war. Cheers, [[User:Dawn Bard|Dawn Bard]] ([[User talk:Dawn Bard|talk]]) 22:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}


Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 03:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not doing any "edit war". The article was, as I originally found it, absurdly biased, really nothing more than a compilation of attacks on the organization. Even so, I left all the cited material in place and adding more to provide balance.
1. To simply say that the SPLC is a "civil rights" organization, suggests that it does not have a political bent, which is clearly does. "Advocacy" might be a good idea.
2. There are many people who would disagree that Cameron's research is "discredited." You've simply not chosen to believe them. You've taken the word of those who attack him and reported it as if fact.
3. Deleting the balancing material about the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission is an example of bias. They are as authoritative as is the SPLC.
4. I would ask you to find biographical material that is then not from attack sites. The UC Davis stuff is actually related to a blog by one professor who is attacking Cameron and so likely shouldn't be cited either.
5. Again, you're just accepting the word of groups attacking FRI. You haven't found any unbiased, non-attack sources. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Yeoberry|Yeoberry]] ([[User talk:Yeoberry|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Yeoberry|contribs]]) 22:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Just a comment about procedure. It's great that you've responded here, and I'll allow other people to reply. But it's very important that you don't try to re-introduce your changes into the article until the discussion here has finished. [[User:StAnselm|<b>St</b>]][[Special:Contributions/StAnselm|Anselm]] ([[User talk:StAnselm|talk]]) 22:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


== POV Pushing ==
== Required edits ==


I cannot figure out how to edit the summary and the side panel.
The article as of the beginning of 3-7-13 was a propaganda piece with a clear, unrelenting, unfair agenda.
I don't have time for a full revision but one should be under taken.
# Some examples, it calls the FRI "small". If so, then it would violate wiki's notability standards.
# Why cite SPLC? It's not an organization known for it's expertise on issues related to FRI nor is it a reliable, unbiased tertiary authority.
# If SPLC is cited, then why is not a balancing organization also cited?
# The article states that, as if established fact, that Cameron's research is "discredited", without citation.
# Editors deleted claims by FRI that they've proven malfeasance by the APA, etc.
# The article cites material from a blog by a professor at UC Davis as if it is authoritative and unbiased.
# The article is basically a compilation of attacks on FRI while purposely suppressing material favorable to it. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Yeoberry|Yeoberry]] ([[User talk:Yeoberry|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Yeoberry|contribs]]) 22:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:It would have been better to participate in the discussion that was already started, but allow me to address each of your points as best I can. First, I think it's hyperbolic and insulting to other editors to simply dismiss this article as you have above. Such attitudes will rarely influence others to support your ideas. I suggest toning it down a bit.
:#Notability is not determined by the subject organization's size, but by [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] taking note of the organization.
:#The SPLC is considered authoritative in matters of discrimination, civil rights abuses, hate groups, etc. They have a long history of uncovering civil rights abuses and have been a resource for the FBI. I recommend you read [[Southern Poverty Law Center]] to gain an understanding of their history and why they are deemed credible.
:#It's not our goal to balance everything with counterpoints. Articles should represent what the available independent sources say about the subject in due proportion. (See [[WP:DUE]]).
:#From Footnote #7: "Started in 1987 by psychologist Paul Cameron, the Family Research Institute (FRI) has become the anti-gay movement’s main source for what Cameron claims is “cutting-edge research” — but is, in fact, completely discredited junk science pushed out by a man who has been condemned by three professional organizations." If you have reliable sources that support Cameron's research, then it would certainly be worth exploring.
:#Because, as I said in the edit summary and the section above, it was a self-serving claim from a [[WP:PRIMARY]] source.
:#I think that was recently removed by 72Dino.
:#No, its a compilation of known, notable information reported by reliable, independent sources.
:- [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 00:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


According to the summary FRI is deemed an anti-gay hate group by the SPLC. For several years now the SPLC has changed anti-gay to anti-LGBTQ.
# The description that it is "small" is unnecessary and prejudicial. Simply cite the organizations membership, budget, etc., as is partially done later in the article. The question then, why did an editor feel the need to insert the word "small". Is it a quote from a reliable source or an expression of an agenda by an editor.
# SPLC is also considered a highly liberal political organization by others. It's debatable whether it should be quoted here at all and, even if so, why is it mentioned twice? There's no reason why other organization's rejection of that label and criticism of the criteria used to come to the conclusion that it is a "hate group" ought not also to be considered, unless, of course, it doesn't fit the agenda the editor(s) are imposing on this article.
# First, Cameron isn't guilty until proven innocent. He claims to have been published by reliable, peer-reviewed journals. If so, then that should be noted. He makes specific claims to be a contributor to mainstream journals (and I verified one claim yesterday, regarding the British journal). The main source of these attacks on him are from a blog by someone at UC Davis. That's not a reliable source.
# Sorry, but the article is really just a cherry-picked collection of attacks of critics of Cameron/FRI. That you consistently edit the article to suppress balancing reporting and eliminate the mention of organizations that offer an alternative perspective suggest you're driven by an agenda. If you can't restrain your biases, then I suggest you stop editing this article.
⚫
[[User:Yeoberry|Yeoberry]] ([[User talk:Yeoberry|talk]]) 14:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


The side panel has 2010 revenues.
@ MrX
Upon further review, your statement "No, its a compilation of known, notable information reported by reliable, independent sources" is, frankly, a false. There's not one serious, reliable, independent source in this article, that I can see. The verdict that Camerson's research is "discredited" has two references to the SPLC which is not an academic or psychological institution. The SPLC, a leftist political organization with a clear agenda, and a professor at UC Davis (Hayek) are cited as if they have the final word. This is POV-pushing.[[User:Yeoberry|Yeoberry]] ([[User talk:Yeoberry|talk]]) 14:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
:I have added two additional references to support the statements about Cameron's discredited research. I do';t know what you mean by the SPLC having a clear agenda. Please do enlighten us, with cites, if you can. - [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 16:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


Revenues for the year ended June 30, 2019 were $50,518.<ref name="Business Master File">{{cite web |title=Business Master File |url=https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/exempt-organizations-business-master-file-extract-eo-bmf |website=IRS Business Master File |publisher=Internal Revenue Service |accessdate=27 October 2020}}</ref>
::(ec)''[[The Advocate]]'' is clearly not a neutral source. I googled ''Church & State'' but was unable to identify which publication it is, so more information on that source would be helpful. An academic journal stating the research is discredited would be preferable to support that content. [[User:72Dino|72Dino]] ([[User talk:72Dino|talk]]) 16:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
⚫
[[User:David Cary Hart|David Cary Hart]] ([[User talk:David Cary Hart|talk]]) 15:55, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


{{talkref}}

@ MrX, you mean that you went fishing for some more sources to bolster your POV.
Laird Wilcox, claims to have provided SPLC with some of the information initially used to compile their list of "hate groups". He "concluded that a lot of [the SPLC's hate groups] were vanishingly small or didn’t exist, or could even be an invention of the SPLC." Some of the "hate groups" were creations of SPLC informants, rather than legitimate groups. And with the advent of the internet, some of them exist "nowhere except in cyberspace." Wilcox concludes, "The whole issue of “lists” is full of smoke and mirrors."<ref>"An Expert on Fringe Political Movements Reflects on the SPLC’s Political Agenda - An Exclusive Interview with Author and Researcher Laird Wilcox,"Volume 20, Number 3 (Spring 2010) http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc_20_3/tsc_20_3_wilcox_interview.shtml</ref>

In the wake of an August 2012 shooting at the headquarters of the [[Family Research Council]], some columnists criticized the SPLC's listing of the Family Research Council as an anti-gay hate group. Dana Milbank, of the Washington Post, wrote that the SPLC was "reckless in labeling as a “hate group” a policy shop that advocates for a full range of conservative Christian positions." <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-hateful-speech-on-hate-groups/2012/08/16/70a60ac6-e7e8-11el-8487-64e4b2a79ba8_story.html</ref><ref>[http://huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/22dana-milbank-washington-post-family-research-council-hate-group_n_1822805.html Dana Milbank, Washington Post Writer, Slams LGBT Activists, SPLC For FRC's 'Hate Group' Label]</ref> Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council,” said, after the attack, “I believe [the gunman Floyd Corkins] was given a license to do that by a group such as the Southern Poverty Law Center who labeled us a hate group because we defend the family and stand for traditional orthodox Christianity.”<ref>FRC's Perkins: Southern Poverty Law Center Gave Gunman 'License to Shoot', http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/perkins-shooting-family-research/2012/08/16/id/448862?s=al</ref> Capital Research Center states that the SPLC "deliberately mischaracterizes conservatives and tea partiers as “extremists”."<ref>Southern Poverty Law Center: Wellspring of Manufactured Hate, http://www.capitalresearch.org/2012/09/southern-poverty-law-center-wellspring-of-manufactured-hate/</ref> <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Yeoberry|Yeoberry]] ([[User talk:Yeoberry|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Yeoberry|contribs]]) 16:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Latest revision as of 05:09, 14 February 2024

source?

[edit]

I would like to see a source for the last remark. Yes, they are very politicized but please back up your statements.

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Required edits

[edit]

I cannot figure out how to edit the summary and the side panel.

According to the summary FRI is deemed an anti-gay hate group by the SPLC. For several years now the SPLC has changed anti-gay to anti-LGBTQ.

The side panel has 2010 revenues.

Revenues for the year ended June 30, 2019 were $50,518.[1] David Cary Hart (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Business Master File". IRS Business Master File. Internal Revenue Service. Retrieved 27 October 2020.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Family_Research_Institute&oldid=1207177451"