Talk:Family Research Council

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LGBT Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.

"what it considers" traditional family values because it's based on a specific model of families within the US, out of the wide range of family forms and values over the last few millennia on the planet. Also, added "conservative" to Christian: libertarian conservatives have very different views on homosexuality, for example.Vicki Rosenzweig 12:28, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Very good points. I think your NPOVing is great. Andrewa 13:18, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] HPV source

There used to be a reference in there to a New Scientist interview... it seems to have vanished. Nothing in this talk page gives a valid reason for its removal, so I quickly reinserted it.

While I agree that it would be helpful for the remover to have noted here why it was removed, having tested it just now, I suspect it was simply that the link is broken. Does anyone have a new link? Lawikitejana 07:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright Violation?

Isn't it a violation of copyright to basically reproduce verbaitem what that website says even if you appropriatly attribute it...? We need to rewrite this methinks. -SocratesJedi | Talk 01:05, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I note also that the SourceWatch article (at [1]) is very similar. SourceWatch should probably link to the Wikipedia article, to comply with the GFDL, but I'll hold off pursuing that in the hope that someone will get around to rewriting this article anyway. Meanwhile, the content I'm adding about Spongebob Squarepants is original with me. JamesMLane 08:12, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I agree as well. Even if it's not copyright violation, it does seem to place the verifiability criterion over the neutral POV criterion by quoting material that tends to be PR. Moreover, the long section from their web site that profiles Dobson seems out of place here -- he does have his own article, after all. I'm hoping, too, that a competent re-writer will surface (though it's not encouraging that I am writing that 18 months after the last person said it ...). Lawikitejana 09:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Right Coalition Members

I'm not sure why this section is in this article. Any clues? It seems more like a category, or a separate topic.--Gandalf2000 06:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Video Game Report Card"

Could use a mention of their annual "Video Game Report Card" and general view of the industry... They're almost as bad as Jack Thompson... --Wulf 20:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Content dispute between FeloniousMonk and Joe Carter

1) "The FRC is associated with James Dobson's Focus on the Family and William J. Bennett."

FRC is not formally associated with FotF or with Bennett. --User:Joe Carter 09:52, 8 August 2006
Relevant associations need not be formal for inclusion in Wikipedia, only verifiable. In fact, some of the most significant are relationships in groups like this are intentionally informal. As the intro correctly points out the FRC officially became a division of Dobson's Focus on the Family, but in 1992 IRS concerns about the group's lobbying led to an administrative separation; this is verifiable: [2] The joint letter issued by FRC and Focus on the Family to pastors -- "we want you to know that Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council are committed to standing side by side with pastors like you in this battle" -- proves that they still are.[3] FeloniousMonk 18:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, well then if that is the standard I'll start including all of the significant relationships that FRC has with other groups. --User:Joe Carter

2) "According to a report prepared for The Nation by the Center for Responsive Politics, in all of Erik Prince's political funding generosity since 1989, he has never given a penny to a Democrat running for national office."

What has Erik Prince to do with FRC? It was Edgar not Erik who provided the funding. --User:Joe Carter 09:52, 8 August 2006
As it says, "Private military contractor, Blackwater founder, who comes from a powerful Michigan Republican family and social circle, and his father, Edgar, helped Gary Bauer start the Family Research Council." Clearly the family is the subject there, not any one member. That two generations of a prominent Republican family provided funding to right wing causes, one of which is the FRC, is notable. I am not the original author of this passage, BTW. FeloniousMonk 18:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
If you are not the original author then why did you replace a cited source with an unverifiable claim? If you had bothered to read the reference I provided you would have seen that Erik was the one who helped found FRC. Unless you can provide a citation backing up your claim that Edgar is involved, then I suggest you stick with what is verifiable. --User:Joe Carter
Original authorship is irrelevant, and your point has been noted. Your reference will be checked per WP:VER, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Meanwhile we shall proceed apace with verifying the other information. •Jim62sch• 22:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

3) "Company president Jackson has also given money to Republican candidates. Joseph Schmitz-the former Pentagon Inspector General turned general counsel to Blackwater's parent, The Prince Group-lists on his resume membership in the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, a Christian militia formed before the First Crusade. Like Prince, he comes from a right-wing family; his father, former Congressman John Schmitz, was an ultraconservative John Birch Society director who later ran for President. Joseph Schmitz was once in charge of investigating private contractors like Blackwater, but he resigned amid allegations of stonewalling investigations conducted by his department. He now represents one of the most successful of those contractors."

None of this has anything to do with FRC. --User:Joe Carter 09:52, 8 August 2006
Again, it illustrates the FRC's connections to notable support from right wing politicos from which the FRC benefits. FeloniousMonk 18:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Where's the citation? You do have proof for this claim, I presume, otherwise you wouldn't be making it, right? --User:Joe Carter
Again, as I said eariler, I'm not the original author of this passage. Cites will not be hard to find. FeloniousMonk 20:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, then let's change it once we have some verification. User:Joe Carter


4) "FRC campaigns for an increase in abstinence-only sex education, particularly in state schools."

You keep restoring typos, which shows that you are not paying close attention to the material you are reverting. --User:Joe Carter 09:52, 8 August 2006
So you're deleting masses of sourced content because of typos? Typos are easily fixed, deleted content is bigger problem. FeloniousMonk 18:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
No, you are the one reverting masses of unsubstatiated content without paying attention to what you are doing. --User:Joe Carter
FM is reverting your edits. Are you saying that your edits are "masses of unsubstatiated content"? Was this a syntactical error? How much attention are you paying to what you write? I assume you've heard the old saw about glass houses and stones, yes? •Jim62sch• 22:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

5) "They have had minimal involvement in the intelligent design legal incident or evolution controversy, commenting only briefly on the matter while maintaining a neutral stance."

Why include information on a matter on which you admit they are "neutral"? --User:Joe Carter 09:52, 8 August 2006
That is neither a passage I wrote, nor find accurate. They are active in promoting ID, their "True Blue Award" clearly advocates for ID and is intended to influence policymakers: "House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) received the "Un-Intelligent Design" award for being a longtime proponent of removing faith from the public square, prayer from public schools and intelligent design from academic studies." [4] Also, the FRC has published 2 Fact Papers[5] and 8 Commentaries[6] in support of ID. Clearly they are a notable voice in support of ID. FeloniousMonk 18:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
If you don't find it accurate, then why not change it and include the citations you list? User:Joe Carter
I've little doubt that FM will do so. •Jim62sch• 22:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

6) "In the May 30, 2005 edition of Harper's Magazine, Chris Hedges in Soldiers of Christ II writes that the Family Research Council sponsors radio broadcasts the Dominionist movement and that Perkins, president of the Family Research Council appears in videos promoting the dominionist message that "America’s culture was hijacked by a secular movement"[7]

This material and subsequent criticism belongs under the "Criticism" heading, not under "Policies." --User:Joe Carter 09:52, 8 August 2006
Criticism sections are not necessarily the preferred style at Wikipedia, read Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structures_which_can_imply_a_view. FeloniousMonk 18:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

7) The Southern Poverty Law Center has linked the Family Research Council to racism through the activities of its president Tony Perkins.[8] In the April 26, 2005 issue of The Nation magazine journalist Max Blumenthal wrote that Family Research Council president Tony Perkins has longstanding ties to racist organizations, including a deal with white supremacist David Duke to share his mailing list. ***

Slanderous allegations which are unsupported and libelous should not be included. The articles also do not say what you claim. --User:Joe Carter 09:52, 8 August 2006
Uh, it can't be slander -- that's for spoken words. •Jim62sch• 22:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
It's relevant, verifiable and supported by the cites: "Former Louisiana legislator Tony Perkins, a "family values" crusader who had given a speech to the white-supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens on May 19, 2001, took over the FRC's leadership in 2003."[9] - "Senate majority leader Bill Frist appeared through a telecast as a speaker at "Justice Sunday," at the invitation of the event's main sponsor, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins. . . Four years ago, Perkins addressed the Louisiana chapter of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), America's premier white supremacist organization, the successor to the White Citizens Councils, which battled integration in the South. In 1996 Perkins paid former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke $82,500 for his mailing list. [10] Sorry, but that passage is eminently relevant to the topic of the FRC and well-supported. FeloniousMonk 18:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree. And if you had written it out that clearly and NPOV'd it like that, then I would have no quarrel. But there is a huge difference between the opinion that is on the page now, and the factual content you list above. Why don't we agree to use what you've written above to replace the disputed content? --User:Joe Carter

8) A "homosexuality detection expert" at the FRC stated that words like "tolerance" and "diversity" are part of a "coded language that is regularly used by the homosexual community." [11]"

FRC has no "homosexuality detection expert". The reason it is in quotes is because the op-ed write made it up. You should really be more critical of the source material you claim to use. --User:Joe Carter 09:52, 8 August 2006
Whether they do or not we really don't know nor could we in the article as it would be neither verifiable nor supportable by WP:RS and WP:NOR. It's clearly a term attributed to the National Business Review which is the supporting cite: [12] As such it is fine per our policies.
I didn't find it to be clear at all. In fact, since the reporter is being dishonest it doesn't help matters to word it as if FRC actually had someone on staff who claimed to be a "homosexuality detection expert." Why don't we word it so that it is clear that hte NBR is making the claim, rather than burying that point in the reference. --User:Joe Carter
The NBR meets the criteria for WP:RS, thus any issue you have must be taken up with them. However, as I can find no record of FRC suing NBR for libel, one must assume that the statement is true. •Jim62sch• 22:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Not that it matter to the article but I'm curious, exactly how is it you knowthat FRC has no "homosexuality detection expert"? FeloniousMonk 18:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
"Whether they do or not we really don't know nor could we in the article as it would be neither verifiable nor supportable by WP:RS and WP:NOR." Yes, and that is precisely why it should not be used as a citation. It makes Wikipedia look like a joke. --User:Joe Carter
The cites are perfectly acceptable per Wikipedia's foundational policy, WP:NPOV. If you intend to continue contributing here get used to the idea that Wikipedia's goal is presenting all notable viewpoints within the constaints of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. FeloniousMonk 20:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Obviously I diagree that the citations are NPOV. The policy is that the citations cannot express a bias (WP:NPOV --Political bias, including bias in favor of or against a particular political party, policy or candidate.) and that they must represent fact, not just opinion. Saying that Tony Perkins spoke to an allegedly racist group is a fact. Implying that this implies that FRC or Perkins is also racist is unsubstantiated opinion. I trust that you are as committed to the NPOV as I am and will work with me to week the "facts" from the "opinions." --User:Joe Carter
Cites are not required to be NPOV here, it is assumed most are not. Read WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR. FeloniousMonk 21:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
You'll notice that the policy also states that when opinions are expressed, that the citations should be quoted directly, not paraphrased and presented as fact. --User:Joe Carter
"I'm curious, exactly how is it you knowthat FRC has no "homosexuality detection expert"?" Because I work for FRC. --User:Joe Carter
WP:AUTO applies to you then: "You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest." This is a guideline and not a policy, but editors are discouraged, but not prohibited, to edit articles of their employers. If you do edit, you need to exercise extra caution to adhere to our content policies, in particular WP:NPOV, and we need to be extra circumspect in dealing with your claims and objections. FeloniousMonk 20:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Point duly noted. I agree that being an employee of FRC that I need to be cautious and careful. But I also think that having inside information offers an opportunity to clarify the actual positions of FRC and not just the perceptions. My goal in editing this page is not to tilt opinion toward FRC but to give an accurate portrayal -- warts and all -- of our history, associations, policies, and politics. --User:Joe Carter
"Inside information?" That would be a violation of WP:NOR and could be a violation of WP:NPOV. •Jim62sch• 22:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
It also offers an opportunity for the FRC to directly push its agenda through this page. As an FRC employee, anything you contribute will be scrutinized with this in mind. Now that we know FRC has employees contributing here, we'll need to be circumspect about all contributions from unfamiliar sources moving forward. FeloniousMonk 21:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
How exactly could I push FRC's agenda if the requirement is to use NPOV? I don't think you'll find one example where I've tried to tilt the sources in favor of FRC. I've merely tried to insert relevant citations and remove disputed opinions that are being presented as fact. I also find it rather odd that my opinion is considered suspect because I work for the organization while those with clear and obvious biases against FRC are given a pass. --User:Joe Carter

9)"Christian Right Coalition Members"

There are no "Christian Right Coalition Members." Including this category is just silly and shows a disregard for the Wikipedia project. --User:Joe Carter 09:52, 8 August 2006
What term would you prefer? There's no shortage evidence showing that these groups are linked ideologically. FeloniousMonk 18:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
What about "Organizations that are often referred to as the Christian Right"? --User:Joe Carter
"Organizations in the Christian Right" is fine per Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Making_necessary_assumptions FeloniousMonk 21:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I've added that category to the page.--User:Joe Carter

10) "Personnel"

You keep reverting back to personnel who are no longer with FRC. And Jack Burkman is not a lobbyist for FRC. --User:Joe Carter 09:52, 8 August 2006
That they were with the FRC is notable. If they are no longer with the FRC then '(former)' qualifier should be added.
Then add a seperate section noting that they are "former" employees.
It is public information that Jack Burkman was paid $40K by the Family Research Council between 1998-2004 as a lobbyist:[13] FeloniousMonk 18:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Being paid to be a lobbyist does not entitle one to be included under "Personnel." If you believe this information has some historical relevance then it should be included in a seperate area noting the dates he worked for FRC and provide a citation. --User:Joe Carter
Considering that you're an FRC employee, perhaps you'd like to be listed as well? ;) FeloniousMonk 20:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I wondered if for the sake of transparency whether I should list myself under that category. I'm only a lowly "Director of Web Communications", though, and not a senior staff member. If you think it is warranted, though, I'd be glad to include all director level positions under the "Personnel" category. I don't want to add fluff, but if it is something that others would find notable then I would want to add it. Although I am an employee of FRC, I am also a champion of Wikipedia and want to do everything possible to ensure that it remains a useful and neutral resource. User:Joe Carter

Because we both have strong, distinct opinions about what content should be included, why don't we work together to see if we can't make this page as accurate as possible while offering it as a shining exemplar of the NPOV. Would you be up for that? User:Joe Carter

Sure, that's exactly what I've been trying to do. FeloniousMonk 21:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, then I suspect we will find ourselves often in agreement, eh? ; ) --User:Joe Carter

[edit] Who?

"Private military contractor, Blackwater founder, who comes from a powerful Michigan Republican family and social circle, and his father, Edgar, helped Gary Bauer start the Family Research Council." Unless the man's name is Blackwater Founder, I don't know who this sentence is about. Tom Harrison Talk 23:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If you read the next sentence you do...but most languages don't work that way. That whole paragraph needs a significant rewrite. Ugh. •Jim62sch• 23:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I get it now. I split it into two paras. Sorry for the long string of edits; I was jus going to put in a few links as I read, but I got carried away. My next question is, what does Joseph E. Schmitz have to do with the FRC? Tom Harrison Talk 00:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I do not see the connection, so I am removing the paragraph on Joseph E. Schmitz. Tom Harrison Talk 19:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SPLC

In this edit Tom Harrison says "'rm splc linked them to racism' - maybe they did, but not in that article, unless I missed it."

I'm afraid you did miss it Tom, it's says it right here: "Former Louisiana legislator Tony Perkins, a "family values" crusader who had given a speech to the white-supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens on May 19, 2001, took over the FRC's leadership in 2003." [14] The article perfectly supports the passage that you removed: "The Southern Poverty Law Center has linked the Family Research Council to racism through the activities of its president Tony Perkins. [15]" Please restore it as I'm at my 3RR limit Tom. FeloniousMonk 01:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I overlooked it. I see it has been restored. Tom Harrison Talk 02:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Christian Right Coalition Members

This category really needs to be reworded. It implies that there is a "Christian Right Coalition" and that FRC is a "member."—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) .

I'm not sure which category you mean. I see Conservative organizations in the United States, Organizations based in the United States, LGBT rights opposition, and New Right (United States). Tom Harrison Talk 00:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC) Never mind, I see you mean the section. Does it need a citation in support? Tom Harrison Talk 00:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm not saying its inaccurate, just poorly worded. I'd recommend using the category title found on the Christian Right entry: "Notable persons and organizations said to be members of the Christian Right". I think that would give a more accurate impression. The way its worded now implies that there's an organized group called the "Christian Right Coalition." --Joe Carter
I see your point, but I'd like to avoid 'said to be'. I changed it to Members of the Christian right coalition. If the members are generally recognized without much disagreement, maybe this should be a template. Tom Harrison Talk 14:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem with "Christian right coalition" is that it still gives the impression that there is a "coalition." I realize it is a minor point but I believe that Wikipedia should be as accurate as possible. Also, while I agree that the "said to be" language is not ideal, it is what is used on both the entries for Christian Right and Secular Left. Since such terms are merely descriptive and tend to be used by political opponents, "said to be" might be the most accurate way to phrase it. -- Joe Cartertalk 23 August 2006
I imagine there are differences of opinion about who are allies and which goals are shared, but is there really disagreement that a Christian right coalition exists? I ask to know. Tom Harrison Talk 01:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The term "coalition" implies an alliance but that isn't true of the groups listed. I've never heard of "Public Advocate" and since there is no entry for it, there is no way to determine whether it should be included. FRC and the Christian Coalition may be "co-belligerents" but they aren't exactly friendly. And the Moral Majority doesn't even exist anymore so it couldn't be part of a coalition at all. I just think the listing causes confusion and doesn't add any real value. -- Joe Cartertalk 23 August 2006

[edit] Christian right in United States politics

I have moved the list of coalition members to 'see also', and added a new section. For this I took a couple of paragraphs from Christian right in United States politics. I think we might summarize it in two or three short paragraphs. The article I drew from looks like it could use some work (not to minimize what others have done there - certainly more than I have). There may be better, or additional, articles to draw from and summarize. It would be nice if this section and the article(s) it refers to could be an objective analysis of FRC's place in the US political enviornment. I don't know enough about it to do that well. Tom Harrison Talk 22:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Racism allegations

Under this category, the following assertion is included:

In 1996 Perkins paid former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke $82,000 for his mailing list. At the time, Perkins was the campaign manager for a right-wing Republican candidate for the US Senate in Louisiana. The Federal Election Commission fined the campaign Perkins ran $3,000 for attempting to hide the money paid to Duke."[15]

FRC's response (which can be found at this link: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=LH05F09) is as follows:

In an article in The Nation ("Justice Sunday Preachers" April 26, 2005), Max Blumenthal falsely asserts, "In 1996 Perkins paid former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke $82,500 for his mailing list. At the time, Perkins was the campaign manager for a right-wing Republican candidate for the US Senate in Louisiana."

Tony Perkins was the manager of the 1996 U.S. Senate campaign of Republican Woody Jenkins in Louisiana where Impact Media was contracted to make pre-recorded telephone calls for the campaign. In 1999, an unrelated federal investigation uncovered that David Duke had a financial interest in the company, which he did not report to the IRS, resulting in his conviction on federal tax evasion charges. This connection was not known to Mr. Perkins until 1999. Mr. Perkins profoundly opposes the racial views of Mr. Duke and was profoundly grieved to learn that Duke was a party to the company that had done work for the 1996 campaign.

These facts have been widely reported in Louisiana and the reports appearing now in various partisan media are not accurate. In 2003, Mr. Jenkins published a letter in the major daily in Baton Rouge responding to a critical article that resurrected the same distortion. "[I]t is unfortunate," Jenkins wrote, "for you to smear a good man like [then-] Rep. Tony Perkins. There is absolutely nothing about the matter that should taint Rep. Perkins. His intentions were entirely honorable, and neither he nor I have ever been 'in bed' with David Duke as you so crudely and unjustifiably allege."

The assertions made by Mr. Blumenthal are untrue and a distortion of the facts.

I'd appreciate if someone could include this information and source in order to balance the false allegations made by Blumenthal. -- Joe Carter

Thanks, Tom, for the NPOVing on that section. -- Joe Carter
No problem. It's often easier to approach neutrality by adding material instead of removing it. Tom Harrison Talk 01:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hotel pornography

Should this really be under the "Criticisms and Controversies" category? Under the "Policies" category it is already noted that FRC, "Frequently campaign for extremely tight regulation of pornography bordering on complete prohibition..." The new addition just seems rather redundant. -- Joe Carter

[edit] United States Politics Section

The United States Politics section in the article needs to be re-written to focus it on the FRC, not on the Christian Right. The article is about the FRC. -207.119.78.113 02:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)