Talk:Family Research Council/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Uncontroverted factual statement

I have reverted this edit, which implies that it is not a fact that the FRC has promoted false and discredited claims about LGBT people and opposed their equal rights. This article extensively discusses the group's false and discredited claims that gay and lesbian people are a danger to children, that allowing gay and lesbian people in the military would promote molestation, and that gay and lesbian people have "negative psychological and health effects." These are factually untrue and no reliable source currently cited states otherwise; ergo, that the FRC has made such false and discredited claims is not merely a claim, but an undisputed statement of fact. Similarly, it is an undisputed fact that the FRC opposes equal rights for LGBT people - they proudly and loudly state as such. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

And no, it is not sufficient to say "the FRC says it's true." The FRC may make claims all it wishes, but we are not required to present its fringe viewpoints as if they have equal validity with the mainstream medical view of these issues. The FRC clearly believes that LGBT people are pedophiles who pose a danger to children, but Wikipedia is not required to pretend that that is anything more than discredited homophobic propaganda. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: The previous wording ("In 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center classified FRC as an anti-gay hate group,[5][6] which generated some controversy.") was the result of the discussion in this RfC - the consensus was against it supplying the reason. Anyway, I see it was recently changed without discussion; perhaps a consensus for the new wording should be obtained first. StAnselm (talk) 09:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I would be happy to go back to the previous consensus version, which would also omit the extensive discussion of the fact that some conservative lawmakers decided to defend a group which agrees with them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
• And certainly, putting "false and discredited claims" in WP voice does appear to be POV in light of the objection that the listing received. StAnselm (talk) 09:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with StAnselm on this point. SunCrow (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • None of the sources cited currently state that the FRC's supporters challenged the SPLC's factual statements about what the FRC believes, and there are no rebuttals to the extensive discussion (in this very article) of the factual falsity of these claims. Are you prepared to cite mainstream scientific sources which support the FRC's claim that gay and lesbian people are a danger to children? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The FRC's viewpoint on the scientific and medical issues involved here are demonstrably fringe theories which are given no credence by mainstream science. The morality of homosexuality is a question for ethicists; the claim that gay and lesbian people are dangerous child sexual predators is a homophobic smear which has been widely discredited by mainstream science and which we are not required to treat as if it merits any credence. It is the latter which we are addressing here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

(a) Certainly not mainstream, but Steve Baldwin, “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement,” Regent University Law Review. (b) Mainstream views are not facts, and should not necessarily be put in WP voice. (c) As I see it, the two groups are talking past each other: one group defines male sexual abusers of males as necessarily homosexual, the other does not. StAnselm (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

One group is represented by an overwhelming consensus of mainstream psychology and medicine, the other is a fringe theory which you even admit is not mainstream and for which you offer up citation to a law review from Pat Robertson's university - I'm unaware that that is a source of expert opinion on human psychology. Per WP:GEVAL, we are required not to give fringe, minority viewpoints equal credence or validity in our articles. We can and must describe FRC's opinions and viewpoints, but we are required to place them within the context of mainstream viewpoints and clearly frame FRC's viewpoints as rejected by the mainstream. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• The claim is sourced to the Independent, but that article makes it clear that it's the SPLC's opinion: The Southern Poverty Law Centre has condemned the beliefs of the Family Research Council and argue it makes untrue claims about the LGBT community founded on “discredited research and junk science”. StAnselm (talk) 09:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Slow moving edit war over the last couple days must stop. Changes require consensus. – Lionel^(talk) 09:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
    • By my count it looks like Suncrow and Northbysouth are at 2RR.– Lionel^(talk) 10:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
      • SunCrow has thus far declined to engage in any discussion here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • This article from Newsweek does not present such views as from the SPLC, but as fact: Central to the lobbying campaign to ban transgender people in the military has been the Family Research Council (FRC), one of the largest and most influential anti-LGBT groups in the U.S., and which describes itself as “the leading voice for the family in our nation’s halls of power.” For decades, the group has smeared homosexuals in its publications, insinuating that gay people are more likely to sexually abuse children. EdChem (talk) 01:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted this edit which misrepresents and weakens the undisputed mainstream consensus of reliable sources and medical experts that homosexuality is a normal human variation, and which misrepresents the criticism of the FRC's alleged "junk science" as coming from only one source, when in fact it was cited to come from a wide array of sources. I again call upon SunCrow to join in the discussion here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• The article is unbalanced and POV. It is more about other people's negative opinions of the organization than it is about the organization itself. In its current form, I am tempted to suggest that it be renamed "Things Liberals Don't Like About Family Research Council." Some of the specific problems are:

- There is more to FRC than its position on homosexuality. That one issue permeates the entire article and is in danger of eclipsing the rest of it. Other parts of the article need expansion.

- Southern Poverty Law Center isn't God. It is an organization that promotes a particular point of view, just as FRC is. SPLC's views are closer to the views of most Wikipedia editors than FRC's are, and it's easy to tell that from the article. SPLC's opinion about FRC has a place in this article, but it doesn't need to be in the lede and it doesn't need to be all over the place in the rest of the piece. If SPLC's opinion of FRC is going to be in the lede, the opinions of those who spoke out against its hate designation of FRC belong there as well.

- Lines like "the consensus of mainstream psychological and medical experts that homosexuality is a normal, healthy variation of human behavior" and references to "widely criticized" views or "widely-rejected" claims are not encyclopedic. It's enough to state the facts about what FRC has said and what others have said.

In closing, I want to make clear that while I agree with FRC about many things, I find several of the statements it has made on the topic of homosexuality to be unfortunate. However, it is also unfortunate that editors sometimes use Wikipedia articles as a vehicle to express our displeasure with people or groups with whom we disagree. It's an encyclopedia. It's supposed to communicate facts. Let's all remember that. If one of us wants to write something about how much we disagree with someone, that person can write an op-ed and publish it somewhere. I have very little confidence that we will be able to reach consensus given the obvious ideological slant being pushed, but I wanted to draw attention to the problem. SunCrow (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

- Lines like "the consensus of mainstream psychological and medical experts that homosexuality is a normal, healthy variation of human behavior" and references to "widely criticized" views or "widely-rejected" claims are not encyclopedic. It's enough to state the facts about what FRC has said and what others have said. To the contrary, it's entirely encyclopedic. Please read WP:DUE and WP:GEVAL, along with WP:MEDRS. We are required to put fringe theories, such as the FRC's repeated claims that gay and lesbian people are a danger to children, in context of the undisputed mainstream viewpoints which reject those claims. We are obligated by policy and guidelines to include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world. This article is not a platform for repeating the FRC's claims, unchallenged. It is a platform to present the organization and its viewpoints in context of how reliable sources view it. Mainstream reliable sources in the context of its claims about homosexuality being unnatural and posing a threat to children unanimously dismiss and reject its viewpoints. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

And I will once again repeat that if this was a question of the FRC saying "we don't believe homosexuality is moral," the answer would be different. But here, the FRC is purporting that homosexual people pose a danger to children through their sexual behavior and that homosexuality is not a normal variation of human behavior. These are not mere ethical or moral declamations, but testable, falsifiable biomedical claims about human psychology and sexual health - and they have been widely tested and falsified by mainstream experts within the given fields. The FRC has voluntarily chosen to enter the realm of science by making such claims, and in doing so, must accept the scrutiny which comes with it. We cannot present the FRC's claims in this matter as if they are given any credence or validity by mainstream science, and we must present them as having been rejected and discredited by mainstream science. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• • Like I said, I have very little confidence that we will be able to reach consensus. SunCrow (talk) 07:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
    • It's unfortunate that you don't agree with our longstanding policies as relates to our portrayal of fringe theories about human health and behavior. If you wish to change those policies, that discussion will have to be had somewhere else. The FRC's claims about LGBT people being abnormal and dangerous to children are indisputably fringe theories which have been widely rejected and discredited by mainstream experts in the relevant fields of psychology and sexual behavior. Our article cannot portray them otherwise. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I think you're drawing a fine distinction in saying it's OK for the FRC to say that homosexuality is immoral but not OK to say it's abnormal. According to many schools of thought, the first implies the second - i.e. all immorality is abnormal. And this is the thing - a lot of the time the FRC uses words in a different way to other groups. StAnselm (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

And yet there very clearly is a difference. Whether that is a "fine" distinction or not, the fact of the matter is that the Family Research Council purports that there is research (e.g. science) to support its ideological position in this matter. It has voluntarily decided to enter the realm of science by making such claims. Claiming that homosexual people are psychologically abnormal, as the FRC clearly does, is a fringe theory wholly rejected by the mainstream of psychology. We must and shall present these facts as facts. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• SunCrow and StAnselm: Would you have an object to the statement that the consensus of mainstream psychological and medical experts that homosexuality is a normal, healthy variation of human behavior if the support for it was strengthened to including a list of mainstream organisation (in a single reference) and their statements on the subject? To me, this would demonstrate that it is the consensus view. EdChem (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd be very happy with that. StAnselm (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I would object, because this is a page about Family Research Council. I don't think Wikipedia needs to evaluate the moral correctness of the organization's views, which is very clearly what NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) is attempting to do here. SunCrow (talk) 04:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

SunCrow, this is not about the moral correctness of any of the FRC's views. The issue is the medical and scientific accuracy of its claim that homosexuality is abnormal, etc. It is indisputable that there is a consensus amongst mainstream psychological and medical experts that homosexuality is a normal, health variation of human behaviour. While the FRC maintains a position in opposition to this fact, it is necessary to state the fact as a fact, not an opinion. What I am seeking is what support in the reference section is needed to end the debate about this statement. EdChem (talk) 10:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the current version of the FRC website [1] it appears that FRC is now using biblical arguments to support their position on traditional marriage. Not surprising since social conservatives have switched to using Free Exercise arguments (i.e. First Amendment)in the campaign for traditional values. In regards to this article we should remove content based on abandoned policies and not use archived research papers which no longer represent the current policy of FRC. This means that their position no longer falls under WP:PSCI--it falls under WP:RNPOV. Obviously this significantly reduces the need to refute any fringe theories since the opposition to homosexuality is bible based. Thus this discussion in large part is now moot. – Lionel^(talk) 08:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

O RLY? Not really, of course. Family Research Council believes that homosexual conduct is harmful to the persons who engage in it and to society at large, and can never be affirmed. It is by definition unnatural, and as such is associated with negative physical and psychological health effects. While the origins of same-sex attractions may be complex, there is no convincing evidence that a homosexual identity is ever something genetic or inborn. is not a "biblical argument". Claiming that something has "negative physical and psychological health effects" is literally a medical claim. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

A few comments.

1. We should only cite the subject's website very sparingly and only for the most mundane information.
2. The FRC has a long history of promoting discredited medical theories. That needs to be vigorously reflected in the article, even if they have changed their stance.
3. The wording in the diff in the OP is unacceptable. It attempts to establish a false equivalence.
4. We should use third-party sources for vastly most of the content in this article. WP:OR is not allowed.- MrX 🖋 12:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

MrX, with all due respect, we should do what our policies require, namely WP:ABOUTSELF. The FRC website is perfectly fine for information about FRC. And that said, the article should reflect the apparent shift from medically based objections to same sex relationships to religious objections. The Parent Study is almost 6 years old. And since the publication of the Parent Study social conservatives have made a 180° turn toward arguments based on religious liberty vis-a-vis Free Exercise of Religion as we see most recently with Masterpiece Cake. From the FRC website:

"Family Research Council's vision is a culture in which all human life is valued, families flourish, and religious liberty thrives." (italics mine)

"Family Research Council's mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a Christian worldview."(italics mine)

Let's all get to work improving the article by finding RS which will help our readers understand FRC's religious-based motivations for it's positions.– Lionel^(talk) 13:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The FRC website can be used per WP:ABOUTSELF for some information about the FRC provided that the all five requirements are met. My comments align perfectly with that part of the policy. Claims of what great things they are doing for the family would be an example of self-serving (remember, they feed off of donations).Vision and mission statements are particularly unencyclopedic. I would need to see reliable third party sources to be convinced that they have done a "180° turn" as you say. I just read their 990, and it seems that, among other things, they are pretty concerned about where transgender people go to the bathroom. I don't remember that being in the Bible.- MrX 🖋 13:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Stormy Daniels and the Mulligan

In the above threads, editors have suggested that FRC in now using biblical arguments to support their position on same sex marriage. That's interesting given their apparent disinterest in calling out allegeded infidelity involving porn star Stormy Daniels and a certain leader of the free world. This may be worth mentioning somewhere in the article. Sources: [2][3][4][5][6] - MrX 🖋 00:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

This seems more applicable to the article Tony Perkins (politician), unless FRC issues its own statement on the issue. ^Falling_Gravity 08:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

It may be applicable there too, but it's most applicable here (assuming it meets WP:DUEWEIGHT). Perkins it the President of FRC, and was speaking on their behalf.

"Family Research Council President Tony Perkins recently told Politico that evangelicals were willing to give Trump a “do-over.”

“We kind of gave him — ‘All right, you get a mulligan. You get a do-over here,’ ” Perkins said in an interview for the latest episode of Politico's Off Message podcast."
— The Washington Post

- MrX 🖋 11:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The analysis article you link to does not say Perkins was "speaking on behalf" of the lobbying organization, but notes that he is president. The article and interview posted by Politico also makes it clear that Perkins was discussing his own opinions. ^Falling_Gravity 18:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Restoring NPOV to the article

After some reflection, I have decided to propose changes that I believe would strengthen the article and restore NPOV to it. They are:

• Mention in the lede that FRC and prominent elected officials strongly opposed the SPLC's "hate" designation.

• Create a new subsection under "Controversies and criticism" for criticism of the organization's views on homosexuality. Move the criticisms there.

• Rephrase the sentence that reads "These positions are in opposition to the consensus of mainstream psychological and medical experts that homosexuality is a normal, healthy variation of human behavior" to read "The FRC's view that homosexuality is unnatural conflicts with the consensus view of mainstream mental health and medical organizations that homosexuality is a normal, healthy variation of human behavior." This language is more specific. It also makes it clear that whether or not homosexuality (or anything else) is a normal, healthy variation of human behavior is not a matter of science, but of opinion.

• Rather than using terms like "widely criticized" and "widely-rejected"--which seem to me to be POV, vague, and perhaps even original research--set forth who it is that the cited source says has criticized and rejected the FRC's claims.

• Work on expanding the "History" section.

Thoughts? SunCrow (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

A criticism ghetto? No. Criticism is best worked into the article chronologically or where it fits in with themes and actions.

Regarding FRC "strongly opposing" the hate designation, it doesn't have the force of the media's reaction. Because of course they opposed it.

"Conflicts with" is weak sauce compared to "opposition to" which is accurate and more in line with the FRC position.

WP:FRINGE positions such as the FRC's are always happy to reduce the footprint of the opposition by removing "widely", "many", etc. If we name those who have stated the obvious then we make it seem that only these people believe that homosexual activity is a normal variation. You propose to weaken the impact of the mainstream scientific consensus. Not good.

The only part of the proposal I agree with is to expand the history section. But such an expansion will include criticism and political opposition endeavors, too. Binksternet (talk) 05:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I concur with Binksternet, with a couple of additional comments:

• I don't think we should mention in the lede that prominent elected officials strongly opposed the SPLC hate listing, unless sources establish that the politicians have subject matter expertise in the area of hate groups.
• The history section can be expanded, but should only use (reliable) third-party sources and should only include material that meets WP:DUEWEIGHT.- MrX 🖋 12:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

It also makes it clear that whether or not homosexuality (or anything else) is a normal, healthy variation of human behavior is not a matter of science, but of opinion. No. It's a matter of psychological science. The FRC can, of course, present an opinion that is in conflict with the consensus of psychological science; we just have to make clear that it is. I'm unsure why you believe that we can ignore WP:MEDRS in an article about a group which purports to present research that it believes demonstrates that homosexuality is not a normal, healthy variation of human behavior. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

SunCrow, let me start by saying that I appreciate your posting a proposal here on the talk page and seeking input, rather than making bold changes. I was particularly concerned, however, by the same statement of yours that NorthBySouthBaranof has quoted. You are entitled to your views / beliefs / opinions on homosexuality, as are the FRC – but we are all bound by WP policy to present what is in reliable sources accurately. The conclusion that homosexuality is a normal, healthy variation of human behaviour is the result of extensive medical and scientific investigation and is not an opinion. The FRC's statement that homosexuality is "by definition unnatural, and as such is associated with negative physical and psychological health effects" is an assertion about medical facts. It is based on religious belief and pseudoscience and is demonstrably incorrect. Negative psychological health effects associated with homosexuality are not based on its alleged unnaturalness, but rather the result of a confluence of factors including marginalisation and mistreatment by society, the stresses associated with coming to understand and reconcile being a minority in an environment with an unspoken assumption of heterosexuality, discrimination based in religion and ideology, internalised homophobia, etc. WP policy mandates that WP:MEDRS-level sourcing be included to support a clear and definitive statement of the medical consensus about homosexuality, and those sources are not equivocal. Some relevant examples (there are many more):

• From section F66 of the ICD-10, which deals with classifications of psychological and behavioural disorders that are associated with sexual development and orientation and which was added when sexual orientation was removed as a mental illness: "sexual orientation by itself is not to be considered a disorder"
• From the Working Group preparing the ICD-11: there is "no evidence that [the classifications in F66] are clinically useful" and the "Working Group recommends that these categories be deleted entirely from ICD-11" as "it is not justifiable from a clinical, public health or research perspective for a diagnosis classification to be based on sexual orientation." This comes from the journal article titled "Proposed declassification of disease categories related to sexual orientation in ICD-11: Rationale and evidence from the Working Group on Sexual Disorders and Sexual Health." in the Bull. World Health Organ. PMC 4208576
• From Committee on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Health Issues and Research Gaps and Opportunities (2011). The Health of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender People: Building a Foundation for Better Understanding. United States Institute of Medicine, National Academies Press.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link), which was a report prepared by the US IoM (now the National Academy of Medicine) at the request of US National Institutes of Health.
  • Chapter 1: "Historically, lesbians, gay men, bisexual individuals, and transgender people have not been understood and accepted as part of the normal spectrum of the human condition. Instead, they have been stereotyped as deviants. Although LGBT people share with the rest of society the full range of health risks, they also face a profound and poorly understood set of additional health risks due largely to social stigma. ... It is important to note that, despite the common experience of stigma among members of sexual- and gender-minority groups, LGBT people have not been passive victims of discrimination and prejudice. The achievements of LGBT people over the past few decades in building a community infrastructure that addresses their health needs, as well as obtaining acknowledgment of their health concerns from scientific bodies and government entities, attest to their commitment to resisting stigma and working actively for equal treatment in all aspects of their lives, including having access to appropriate health care services and reducing health care disparities. Indeed, some of the research cited in this report demonstrates the impressive psychological resiliency displayed by members of these populations, often in the face of considerable stress."
  • The report does not "address research and theory on the origins of sexual orientation [as the] committee's task was to review the state of science on the health status of LGBT populations, to identify gaps in knowledge, and to outline a research agenda in the area of LGBT health. The committee recognized that a thorough review of research and theory relevant to the factors that shape sexual orientation (including sexual orientation identity, sexual behavior, and sexual desire or attraction) would be a substantial task, one that would be largely distinct from the committee's main focus on LGBT health, and therefore beyond the scope of the committee's charge."
  • Chapter 2: "In a landmark study funded by the National Institute of Mental Health, psychologist Evelyn Hooker directly tested the assumption underlying homosexuality's inclusion in the DSM, namely, that homosexuality was inherently linked with psychopathology [and] (1957) concluded that homosexuality is not inherently associated with psychopathology and is not a clinical entity, a conclusion that received extensive support in subsequent empirical research (e.g., Gonsiorek, 1991) and eventually became the consensus view of mainstream mental health professionals in the United States."
• The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists March 2016 Position Statement 83 titled Recognising and addressing the mental health needs of the LGBTI population: LGBTI identity has historically been criminalised, pathologised or invisibilised by the legal and medical institutions of Australia and New Zealand. Many gay or bisexual Australian and New Zealander men have a lived experience of sodomy laws, which were repealed in 1986 in New Zealand and between 1975 and 1994 in the various jurisdictions of Australia ... Many LGBTI people also have a lived experience of their sexual identity being defined as a mental disorder or abnormality. ... Legal and medical institutions are becoming increasingly inclusive. Same-sex marriage was legalised in New Zealand in 2013 but is not currently legal in Australia. The RANZCP supports marriage equality based on the evidence that legislative inequality has a significant and deleterious impact on mental health and conversely, that there is a strong link between improved health outcomes and legislation change of this sort. Further, sexual orientation change efforts, or often non-consensual therapies intended to change the sexual orientation of a person, are now broadly understood to be harmful and unethical" (references removed). Note that same-sex marriage was legalised in Australia in December 2017.
• The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists June 2015 Position Statement 60 titled Sexual orientation change efforts: In 2009, the "American Psychological Association published a report [that] found that recent research demonstrates that there is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed, contrary to the claims of SOCE practitioners and advocates. The harm such therapies can cause to individuals, the contribution they make to the misrepresentation of homosexuality as a mental disorder, and the prejudice and discrimination that can flourish through the use of such therapies has led all major medical organisations to oppose the use of sexual orientation change efforts."
• The April 2014 Position Statement PS02/2014 titled Royal College of Psychiatrists' statement on sexual orientation: "The Royal College of Psychiatrists considers that sexual orientation is determined by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors. There is no evidence to go beyond this and impute any kind of choice into the origins of sexual orientation. The College wishes to clarify that homosexuality is not a psychiatric disorder. ... Leading therapy organisations across the world have published statements warning of the ineffectiveness of treatments to change sexual orientation, their potential for harm and their influence in stigmatising lesbian, gay and bisexual people. There is now a large body of research evidence that indicates that being gay, lesbian or bisexual is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment. However, it is eminently reasonable that the experiences of discrimination in society and possible rejection by friends, families and others (such as employers), means that some lesbian, gay and bisexual people experience a greater than expected prevalence of mental health and substance misuse problems. ... It is not the case that sexual orientation is immutable or might not vary to some extent in a person’s life. Nevertheless, sexual orientation for most people seems to be set around a point that is largely heterosexual or homosexual. Bisexual people may have a degree of choice in terms of sexual expression in which they can focus on their heterosexual or homosexual side. ... The College believes strongly in evidence-based treatment. There is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. Systematic reviews [have suggested] that studies which have shown conversion therapies to be successful are seriously methodologically flawed. Furthermore, so-called treatments of homosexuality can create a setting in which prejudice and discrimination flourish, and there is evidence that they are potentially harmful. The College considers that the provision of any intervention purporting to 'treat" something which is not a disorder is wholly unethical. The College would not support a therapy for converting people from homosexuality any more than we would do so from heterosexuality" (references removed).

Doc James is a medical practitioner, has extensive experience with MEDRS and WP, and is uninvolved in this discussion. Would you please make any comments that you see as appropriate here? EdChem (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Re-pinging Doc James.- MrX 🖋 20:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for re-pinging, MrX, and correcting my typo in Doc James' name. EdChem (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Received a ping. Tend not to get involved with US politics. But with respect to whether or not being gay / homosexual is "normal", yes that is a biological / psychological question. And the answer to the question is yes it is biologically and psychologically "normal" per the sources provided. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Doc James, it was your medical / MEDRS experience I was seeking, I completely understand avoiding US politics.  :) EdChem (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

EdChem, thank you for your response.

I did not think that there would be consensus on the sentence regarding homosexuality as a normal, healthy variation of human behavior. Respectfully (and in spite of the well-researched information you provided to the contrary), I maintain that this question is not a scientific one. We will have to agree to disagree there.

I would like to try to reach consensus on the other issues I raised, which were:

* Mention in the lede that FRC and prominent elected officials strongly opposed the SPLC's "hate" designation. If the SPLC's designation is noteworthy enough to be in the lede, the response from twenty members of the House of Representatives, three U.S. Senators, four state Governors, and one state Attorney General should be noteworthy enough to mention there as well, shouldn't it? If not, why not?

* Create a new subsection under "Controversies and criticism" for criticism of the organization's views on homosexuality. Move the criticisms there. There is already a "Controversies and criticism" section in the article. Why shouldn't controversies and criticism be located in that section? If that is such a bad idea, why not get rid of the existing section altogether and move the information to other parts of the article?

* Rather than using terms like "widely criticized" and "widely-rejected"--which seem to me to be POV, vague, and perhaps even original research--set forth who it is that the cited source says has criticized and rejected the FRC's claims.

* Work on expanding the "History" section.

Some editors are stating or strongly implying that I am pushing POV here. Not so. I am not proposing to remove any of the criticisms of FRC, or to sanitize its statements. My motive is to restore NPOV to the article. Currently, it is unbalanced because of the intense focus on one issue. As much as some editors may dislike FRC or its positions (I don't always agree with them myself), the organization is notable for many things other than the position on sexuality and the SPLC designation. The article doesn't reflect that reality. Instead, in my opinion, it reflects the biases of some of its editors. SunCrow (talk) 03:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

NO SEPARATE CRITICISM SECTION. Did you even look at the guideline in my link? Everything you are proposing here is the opposite of what you describe. Rather than restore NPOV, you are seeking to remove it. No way. Binksternet (talk) 06:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

SunCrow, you are perfectly entitled to view questions on the nature of homosexuality as non-scientific and to believe only in conclusions based on faith. What you are not entitled to do is put that into the article as it is inconsistent with policy. Regarding your other comments:

• Mention in the lede that FRC and prominent elected officials strongly opposed the SPLC's "hate" designation. The purpose of the lede is to summarise the article and to provide readers who only look at it with the most important information about the FRC. On the latter basis, I can't see why it would be included – that a group designated as a hate group opposed the designation is obvious, and that a religious group would have defenders from the Christian Right of US politics is equally unsurprising. However, references like the present 91 to 94 probably should be added to the lede after "which generated some controversy." On the former basis, as something that is part of a section of the article, it's inclusion in a summary is debatable. If the lede were expanded to the four paragraph length of a typical GA / FA, there would be much more space for its inclusion and less basis for an editorial choice to exclude it. Having said that, your comments suggest the existence of uncovered positive contributions from the FRC, and adding them to the article would logically lead to likely needing to summarise them in the lede.

• Create a new subsection under "Controversies and criticism" for criticism of the organization's views on homosexuality. Move the criticisms there. No. Definitely Not. Absolutely Not. Just No. Policy and Practice discourages criticism sections, and separating the FRC's views on homosexuality from the criticism of it would be incredibly inappropriate. When an organisation spouts prejudice and makes medical claims that are blatantly untrue, those facts should be immediately noted and a refutation provided. As for why not get rid of the existing section altogether and move the information to other parts of the article? – that's a reasonable question and I would favour investigating this option. Criticism belongs integrated with the body of the text, and ending up with controversy like Duggar separated but the rest integrated would be an improvement, in my view.

• Rather than using terms like "widely criticized" and "widely-rejected"--which seem to me to be POV, vague, and perhaps even original research--set forth who it is that the cited source says has criticized and rejected the FRC's claims. Remember that if reliable sources use those terms, it is neither POV nor OR. Further, listing every person and organisation that has criticised the FRC might be over-weighting the criticisms. Saying a group has been widely criticised when there is one tweet posted by a non-notable person would be POV (and false), but widely criticised can be appropriate when it is accurate.

• Work on expanding the "History" section. Sounds perfectly reasonable so long as it is based on reliable sources, is not UNDUE, and written in an NPOV manner.

EdChem (talk) 07:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Initially, I decided I wouldn't be bothered trying to reach consensus here because too many editors would be too committed to pushing their POV in the article. Then, I changed my mind. I was right the first time. SunCrow (talk) 05:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Your position is that science is wrong and you are right. Binksternet (talk) 05:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

There IS consensus. "Agreeing with me" is NOT consensus. --Calton | Talk 05:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed tag

SunCrow has marked the following sentence as neutrality disputed.

It opposes and lobbies against equal rights for LGBT people[neutrality is disputed] (such as same-sex marriage, same-sex civil unions, and LGBT adoption), abortion, divorce, embryonic stem-cell research and pornography. 

In what way is this sentence not a neutral representation of the sources?- MrX 🖋 23:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

That's an "I don't like it" tag, rather than an actionable or reasonable call for better neutrality. The statement is perfectly accurate, and widely understood to be true about FRC. I removed the tag. Binksternet (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

No, Binksternet, it's a neutrality tag. Contrary to your assertion, the statement that FRC "opposes and lobbies against equal rights for LGBT people" is not perfectly accurate or widely understood to be true. It is a statement of opinion, which is why it shouldn't be in the encyclopedia. In fairness to FRC, they--and many others--would likely argue that they don't seek to limit equal rights for anyone, but to defend the construct of traditional marriage. They would likely argue that persons identifying as gay or lesbian were, pre-Obergefell, completely free to marry members of the opposite sex, and that the defense of traditional marriage did not deny anyone any rights or deprive anyone of equal treatment under the law. LGBT advocates and others would strongly disagree, and would likely assert that traditional marriage laws discriminated against them based upon an identity that they did not choose. But Wikipedia doesn't need to take sides on this matter just because the Supreme Court has done so. That's not the job of an encyclopedia.

MrX, I would note that there is no footnote after this sentence, so there is no issue about whether the sentence is faithful to sources. There aren't any. So we could solve the POV problem by removing this unsourced sentence altogether.

Another way to solve the POV problem is to take out the "equal rights" language. The sentence could be edited to state the issues that FRC lobbies against, as follows: "It opposes and lobbies against same-sex marriage, same-sex civil unions, LGBT adoption, abortion, divorce, embryonic stem-cell research, and pornography." I have previously attempted to edit this sentence to remove the POV, but have been thwarted in that effort by other editors who are very committed to keeping their POV in this article. You know who you are. SunCrow (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Marriage and adoption are rights that straight people have, so if an organization opposes those rights for gay people, then they are opposing equal rights. It's very simple. Here's what some sources say:

"The SPLC’s decision to categorize the Family Research Council as a hate group, while subjective, nevertheless relies on FRC’s record of purveying stereotypes, prejudice, and junk science as a justification for public policy that would deny gays and lesbians equal rights and criminalize their conduct."
— Jones

"Kenneth Connors, a Florida attorney and leader in the pro-life movement, served as president from 2000 to 2003. During his tenure, the FRC’s agenda focused on abortion, traditional marriage (i.e. one man, one woman), religious liberty, parental choice in education and tax relief for families, though a central part of its mission is still working against equal rights legislation for LGBT Americans."
— SPLC

"The Family Research Council opposes and actively lobbies against equal rights for LGBT persons"
— The Independent

- MrX 🖋 20:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

As the majority opinion in Obergefell cogently argued, claiming that LGBT people aren't denied marriage rights because they can marry someone of the opposite sex is like saying that black people aren't denied marriage rights by miscegenation laws because they can marry other black people. "The right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy." Wikipedia is not taking a side in this debate, it is merely reflecting the consensus of reliable sources. That the consensus of reliable sources describes something in a way that you disagree with is irrelevant. Again, this article is not a reflection of the FRC's point of view, it is a description of the FRC from a mainstream point of view. The mainstream point of view is that these rights are, indeed, equal rights. That at some point in the past this would not have been so is irrelevant - at some point at in the past our article on Pluto described it as a planet, whereas we now call it a dwarf planet - because that is now how reliable sources have described it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Your version of "mainstream" only reflects recently changed laws (changes that many disagree with) in a minority of countries containing a minority of the world population. Keep things neutral please. Legacypac (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Since this is concerning assertions regarding mainstream SCIENCE -- not mention how a U.S. organization intersects with in U.S. laws and interpretation -- your "advice" is both misplaced and irrelevant. --Calton | Talk 00:36, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

2012 shooting clearly belongs in the lede

The organization is the victim of a high-profile domestic terror attack, the incident is featured heavily in the body, yet it's nowhere to be found in the lede? That's nonsensical, and perhaps guilty of whitewashing. This is certainly WP:DUE.ModerateMike729 (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

"The SPLC denied responsibility" implies that the SPLC could ever possibly have been responsible for the act of a crazed gunman; I've reworded to make clear that the SPLC condemned the act. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Your wording is fine, I'm in agreement. ModerateMike729 (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Struck comments from confirmed sockpuppet ModerateMikayla555/ModerateMike729. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darryl.jensen/Archive § 07 July 2019. — Newslinger talk 13:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Lead section edits

Hello. I was told to explain myself as to why I made my recent edits to the FRC article's lead section. Without further ado, I shall state my reasons why. Firstly, I corrected several long-standing errors in the article's text and improved its wording, such as adding "the" before the "Family Research Council (FRC)" segment in the lead and the subsequent acronyms, removing unneccessary parentheses from the LGBT rights sentence, and clarifying that LGBT adoption refers to adoption of children, among other things. Secondly, I referred to the FRC's policies as fundamentalist Christian because the reliable sources I've cited do indeed describe the organization and its policies as fundamentalist Protestant, and its publicly expressed stances match with the priorities of Christian fundamentalists. Thirdly, I described their beliefs and canards as pseudoscientific because reliable sources overwhelmingly describe its "research" as junk science, or outright misrepresentation of legitimate scientific material, in addition to them repeatedly using unfounded accussations that LGBT people are "more likely to molest children", et al. 78.99.168.120 (talk) 00:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to the Talk page, 78.99.168.120. Your edits to a protected page show up on Special:PendingChanges and I'm a pending changes reviewer so that's how I came across them. I'm not familiar with all of the discussions that went into developing this article, so I'm going to organize your suggested changes into subsections for discussions by editors more familiar with the article. Schazjmd (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Using "The" with "Family Research Council"

78.99.168.120 suggests using "The" before "Family Research Council" throughout article.

• (my comment) Although Naming conventions say not to use "The" in the title, I haven't been able to find Manual of Style guidance on using it in the body. (Have you tried searching "the" or "article" on wikipedia? ) Does anyone know of a style guideline that recommends against using it in the body? Schazjmd (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

FRC does not use the definite article in their own writing the describe themselves.[7][8] In the absence of a clear policy, it is probably best that their style be followed. BiologicalMe (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Good point, although Washington Post, CNN, and CBS News use "the Family Research Council". Schazjmd (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

SPLC designation as hate group

78.99.168.220 added SPLC designation to first paragraph with refs

• (my comment) The lead provides information on the hate group designation by SPLC already. It should not be mentioned in both the first and third lead paragraph. Schazjmd (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Changes to SPLC text (3rd paragraph)

78.99.168.220 changed In 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center classified FRC as an anti-gay hate group due to what it says are the group's "false claims... to n 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center classified the FRC as an anti-gay hate group due to the FRC's persistent promotion of pseudoscientific beliefs and canards with the intention of denigrating the LGBT community... with refs

• (my comment) By removing "due to what it says are", the attribution of the reasoning to the SPLC isn't as clear. I think we should keep that attribution. Changing the quoted ""false claims about the LGBT community based on discredited research and junk science"" to unattributed "persistent promotion of pseudoscientific beliefs and canards with the intention of denigrating the LGBT community, along with the FRC's consistent opposition towards the expansion of civil rights for LGBT Americans" with refs that are not addressing SPLC's specific designation but are, instead, supporting the revamped wording, is inappropriate for the lead which should only summarize the body. Schazjmd (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Adding "of children" to "adoption"

78.99.168.220 suggests adding "of children" after "LGBT adoption"

• (my comment) Makes sense to me, adds to reader understanding without making them click through on LGBT adoption. Schazjmd (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Response

The SPLC article's lead section for example does put the word "The" before the "Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)" segment which is in bold text, so it is indeed standard procedure to add it to this article, as seen below:

"The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is an American nonprofit legal advocacy organization specializing in civil rights and public interest litigation. Based in Montgomery, Alabama, it is known for its legal cases against white supremacist groups, its classification of hate groups and other extremist organizations, and for promoting tolerance education programs.

The SPLC was founded by Morris Dees, Joseph J. Levin Jr., and Julian Bond in 1971 as a civil rights law firm in Montgomery, Alabama. Bond served as president of the board between 1971 and 1979.

In 1979, the SPLC began a litigation strategy of filing civil suits for monetary damages on behalf of the victims of violence from the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist groups, with all damages recovered given to the victims or donated to other organizations. The SPLC also became involved in other civil rights causes, including cases to challenge what it sees as institutional racial segregation and discrimination, inhumane and unconstitutional conditions in prisons and detention centers, discrimination based on sexual orientation, mistreatment of illegal immigrants, and the unconstitutional mixing of church and state. The SPLC has provided information about hate groups to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and other law enforcement agencies.

Since the 2000s, the SPLC's classification and listings of hate groups (organizations it has assessed either "attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics") and extremists have often been described as authoritative and are widely accepted and cited in academic and media coverage of such groups and related issues. The SPLC's listings have also been the subject of criticism from others, who argue that some of the SPLC's listings are overbroad, politically motivated, or unwarranted. There have also been accusations of misuse or unnecessarily extravagant use of funds by the organization, leading some employees to call the headquarters "Poverty Palace".

In 2019, founder Morris Dees was fired, which was followed by the resignation of president Richard Cohen. An outside consultant, Tina Tchen, was brought in to review workplace practices, particularly relating to accusations of racial and sexual harassment."

78.99.168.120 (talk) 15:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what you're responding to, please address each set of edits in the appropriate section. The article already uses the with SPLC. Why are you pasting a wall of text about SPLC? Schazjmd (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Corkins attack in lede

A recent edit suggesting removing the shooting from the lede with the justification "not needed in lede - doesn't pass the 20-year test." I believe this is incorrect, as the conservative press in America has not forgotten, and continues to bring it up in just about every discussion of the SPLC. A few examples, which I do not propose adding to the article and do not assert are either RS or NPOV sources, include: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. If anything, the FRC's influence on policy or legislation has been seemingly permanently overshadowed by what appears to be the only well-documented hate crime by the left against a right-wing American organization. FWIW, all of these stories, commentaries, press releases, etc. date from after Corkins' 2013 conviction and sentencing for the crime. Jclemens (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Jclemens, a lone nutjob showed up one day. When you compare that to their legacy of homophobic and transphobic influence, it's not a big deal. Certainly it's hard to justify putting that in the lede and omitting Duggar and Rekers, whose stories are emblematic of the reality behind performative Christian fundamentalist bigotry. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

So maybe they should be in the lede too. I think the international activism is pretty forgettable, if we need to remove something in the lede to make room for a broad coverage of the organization, I'd recommend that instead. Jclemens (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC)