Talk:Family Research Institute

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This has just been copied and pasted from the FRI website. Might be an idea to de-bias it a tad. Bjrice 06:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. As is often the case, there was a reasonable POV article before which was copied over by a copyvio. I reverted to the Wikipedia version. Cheers, -Will Beback 09:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... someone decided to remove the comment about the FRI being listed as a hate group. -Rachel Insinga 72.224.115.254 03:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] source?

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

[edit] Can we please get a neutrality check on this thing?

yes, i hate the FRI, but they still deserve fair treatment Dropal 20:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This article looks terrible -- it really is very biased. I don't know much about FRI, but I can tell by the tone of what I read that this is an emotional response to whoever they are. I'll try to start work to make it a little more npov. CBadSurf 07:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article re-written / pov check tag removed

I rewrote the whole article, and pointed out to the Paul Cameron article as well. This was reasonable npov. I also removed the pov check tag, but if you disagree, please put it back on and let me know. CBadSurf 08:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Paul Cameron is already wikilinked so there isn't much reason to have another link at the top. Also, I think your rewrite took this too far the other way in terms of POV. The previous version was a bit of a hatchet job against FRI, but this version contains no criticism at all of what is a pretty controversial group. What is needed here is balance and right now that is missing.--Isotope23 17:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I really don't have a pov on this. I was trying to clean up a hatchet job, as you put it. From what I read, the FRI and Paul Cameron are identical -- it is essentially a one man organization. And the Paul Cameron article details the controversy around him. Which was the reason for the link at the top -- to let people know they should go to that article to read the whole story. I don't think there is any need to provide redundant information. CBadSurf 18:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't trying to suggest that you had a POV here, just that a small section on the controversy surrounding FRI should be included here as well because right now this seems a bit one sided. Maybe Paul Cameron should be moved into the intro so he the wikilink is more prominent in the article. Let me do a bit of research here. I've got a couple of ideas on how this could be done that I want to take a day or so to work through if you don't mind leaving up the tag for a bit.--Isotope23 18:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the tag. I have not gotten into a more indepth edit here yet and I don't think this is so one-sided that it justifies leaving a tag there indefinitely until I get off my lazy ass to edit the article.--Isotope23 16:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)