Talk:Family Research Institute

source?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POV Pushing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ MrX,

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

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

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

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

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

APA and Cameron & reliable sources

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

Delete and redirect to Paul Cameron?

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