Talk:Focus on the Family

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, which collaborates on articles related to abortion, abortion law, the abortion debate, and the history of abortion. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.


Contents

[edit] Creationism

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

[edit] History

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

[edit] Family values

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

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

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

[edit] Wodfamchocsod

The following paragraph caught my eye.

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

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

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

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

[edit] NPOV

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

I agree. As a non-profit organization they can't endorse a political party and keep their tax-exempt status. However, they are certainly very Republican. There's no doubt about that. Is there anyway to show this connection without it being POV? Jayc 04:01, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
How about something like "endorses policies that often coincide with the platform of the Republican party"? I have, however, heard Dr. Dobson critisize the Bush administration from time to time for being what Dobson feels is insufficiently attentive to his organization's goals, but I do certainly agree that the fact that the FotF does often implicitly (although usually not explicitly) support the republicans in a vast range of cases does need to be discussed. I'm certainly open to others ways of saying it though. Just pointing out policy similarity and letting readers draw their own conclusions seems like an okay way to me. (Also good: Isn't there a guiding principle set down by Jimbo that says "Don't spoon feed conclusions" or something too?) Anyway, good work. -SocratesJedi | Talk 04:12, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It's inaccurate to say that FotF endorses policies similar to the Republican party. More and more Republicans are becoming tolerant or supportive of abortion, and that is one policy which FotF takes a strong stance against. There is no denial that Focus advocates conservative policies. Also, the “goal” of the orginisation is not to get right-wing politicians elected. Focus deals with moral issues. Although it does advocate citizens to vote wisely in regards to moral issues, they don't exist just to infiltrate the government. Dobson has clearly said that Focus on the Family is not a political orginisation. D. Wo. 05:12, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)
Apologies. I was confusing Focus on the Family with the Family Research Council, for which my statements are probably more or less accurate (or at least so I think). Having taken a look at FotF, I now feel like my comments are more or less not-applicable to FotF. -SocratesJedi | Talk 21:51, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)


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

[edit] Quasi-addiction?

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

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

[edit] Weasel words

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

[edit] This is not really a stub anymore

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

[edit] Messy References section

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

[edit] American Patriotism

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

[edit] Dobson on Gibson

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

The news article's first sentence is "Focus on the Family ministry founder James Dobson spoke in support Thursday of Mel Gibson and his film..." which makes it relevant. The first 4 words in the whole article is "Focus on the Family." Your claim that it will "Largely [be] forgotten in five years" is your personal opinion. Jews and FF critics may disagree. C56C 04:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
How many of Dobson's statements should be included here? All that receive media attention? My personal opinion about the likelihood of remembering this event is that it is not notable over the next five years or so. The comments seemed relatively innocuous, but that is my point of view. Do you find it notable that a Christian leader forgave Gibson after he apologized, as have a few, more, actors, comedians, producers, conservative commentators, and many Americans. And yes, noted Pink came to his defense. Part of his attempts to rehabilitate himself are meeting with Jewish leaders. Now, how notable is this for Focus on the Family. Rkevins82 06:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Reverting is not exactly "copy editing". Rkevins82 06:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I did not fully revert because someone made grammar changes, but I did write to see talk where my reasons for that edit were given. 1) The first four words in the article about Dobson and Gibson's comments are "FOCUS ON THE FAMILY." How often does the AP write an article with Focus on the Family as the lead sentence? 2) Such a controversial event in the media with Dobson fogiving while others don't is notable. At least it was for the AP. C56C 08:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The article has Focus on the Family in the first sentence because it is providing context for who Dobson is. The article is about Dobson, not Focus on the Family. As I've noted, there are a number of people who have forgiven Gibson. The fact that not everyone has is an absurd point to make. Also, AP publication may be a sign of notability, but for Dobson, not FotF. Rkevins82 19:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The news article is about Focus on the Family, note Dobson says "Our endorsement of it stands as originally stated. We did not believe it was anti-Semitic in 2004, and our views have not changed," Dobson said." This is about a group who endorsed Gibson's movie against the claim it is anti-Semimitic (original focus on the fmaily endorsement:[1]).
If Dobson were speaking for himself, the words "Focus on the Family," "our endorsement," "we don't believe..." and others would not have appeared. Clearly, he is referring to his organization's take on it. C56C 20:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Nice Red Herring. Are you talking about the Focus on the Family's defense of Passion of the Christ or Gibson's DUI? Rkevins82 05:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Its about the comments made, which Dobson and FF forgave. C56C 07:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
FotF did not forgive anything that I can find; Dobson did (and they did not forgive the comments, but Gibson for the comments). You provide an old link that shows FotF did not think the movie anti-semitic. You are supposing that Dobson is speaking ex cathedra because of his verbiage, but you offer no evidence beyond supposition. I do think that we can agree on the most recent edits. I notice that you have done minimal rewrites from the sources. It may need more work if it is to stay, but I would like some outside opinions. Rkevins82 17:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep backpedaling... as I have shown Dobson wasn't speaking about himself, and clearly this is controversial. He clearly forgave Gibson in that "Mel has apologized profusely for the incident and there the matter should rest." If Mel wasn't forigiven then the matter "shouldn't" be put to rest. As for you recent edits calling them "NPOV"[2] is rather interesting considering you removed quotations from the Associated Press. C56C
The removal of quotes was due to the fact that the language was copied in whole from an AP report, which is illegal. If you have problems with specific changes, post them here or go ahead and revert as necessary, rather than sly accusations. In total, I changed the wording for flow, removed what looked like copyrighted material, moved/changed "drunken tirade" earlier in the section as the more clinical "during a DUI traffic stop" As to your comment, I have said all along that Dobson forgave Gibson, which seemed uncontroversial. You are correct that Dobson was speaking for FotF, as verified by the press release, in full. I don't think I'm backpeddling (though I readily admit when I see facts point in another direction), nor do I think that is helpful in finding agreement here. Rkevins82 00:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International (outside USA)?

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

You must be a very important person, if you know everything in Europe.... See http://www.family.org/welcome/intl/. --84.160.80.130 12:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Let's assume good faith, please. GLGerman's edits weren't vandalism, they were simply efforts to ensure that this article is verifiable. You may disagree with the methods, but I see no problem with the underlying motives. -- SwissCelt 14:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/o/c/Talk%7EFocus_on_the_Family_7da9.html"