| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Family Policy Council article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
There is no assertion made that these organizations are related other than they deal with "family" issues. They don't even all have "family policy" as part of their title. Where does the link between them come from? If it's not supported by a verified external source, that would suggest this link is original research. eaolson 04:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- No, not original research. These sites are all related. Here are just 2 sites showing such relations: 1, 2.
- Further, I don't know the policy but it's common sense for this page to be here. Why? People might want to find family policy councils or find info about them -- find the kind of info for which wikipedia is perfectly suited. That's the whole purpose of wikipedia. The only reason not to have such a page is if one had a POV that such organizations are of insignificant value or do not deserve such a page.
- Granted the page is sparse now but wiki allows sparse pages to go up then get worked on by other editors--the very purpose of wikipedia since so far as I know, no professional jobs are perfectly done the first time.
- Here's a List of LGBT-related organizations. You are not suggesting, are you, that such a page is wikiworthy but a similar page of family policy councils is not wikiworthy? And look: "It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with List of gay-rights organizations. (Discuss)" Well that's what I suggest be done here by creating just such a page right from the start.
- I hope these arguments persuade you and I do not have to have another long battle with someone else seeking special treatment for his or her own special interests despite wikipedia policy. I am not saying that's you. I'm just saying I hope you do not remove the page because of your personal feelings about its contents. Further, I hope you're not the kind that insists "verified external sources" means only sources you think are verifiable, as opposed to wiki policy.
- Again, I'm not saying that's you. But your first statement on this page is to question it's inclusion, even though I asked others (in history) to help and said I had more to add. One would think a fellow wikipedian's first reaction would be how to make a page better, rather than probing to determine reasons for tearing it down. So understand why I am legitimately concerned I may have to repeatedly point out wikipedia policy and obtain assistance of others so as to allow wikipedia to be wikipedia, not some detractor's personal playground.
- Please, just try to improve the page or let others do so. Thank you. --
LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 05:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- If you point for the legitimacy is the list of LGBT organizations, than this article should be renamed "List of conservative family policy organizations" and it should be stylistically harmonized with the
List of LGBT-related organizations. And it should not give a false impression that the groups listed are working collaboratively.
Netbenefit 23:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Okay. I see you added a fact tag to loosely-knit. Good eye. This article is about family orgs in general, not the loosly knit ones. For example, the left leaning Washington State Family Policy Council is included. So adding loosely knit is a bit POV. I agree. I'll fix it and remove the POV tag. Thanks. -- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 00:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- If you point for the legitimacy is the list of LGBT organizations, than this article should be renamed "List of conservative family policy organizations" and it should be stylistically harmonized with the
List of LGBT-related organizations. And it should not give a false impression that the groups listed are working collaboratively.
Netbenefit 23:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
A modest but incomplete review of the listed organizations show that they are not only organizations which promote children and families, but a particular conservative POV as to what benefits and harms children and families. This view is not shared by other groups, such as polygamy or gay-rights activists, many of whom feel that they are promoting a different view of what makes for positive families and environments for children. This leaves the article, in my (potentially biased opinion) POV. -- Joe Decker 17:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- So go ahead and add such groups here as well. Perhaps give a definition of family as defined by the various groups. For example, in Canada, a court has just ruled that a child may legally have three parents.
- But maybe not. Consider family is already a wiki page where such information is more appropriate. No need to discuss the definitions of family here where another page exists for that.
- Further, the different groups that have differing views of families may not promote themselves as family policy councils. This article is about family policy councils, specifically people who create an organization devoted almost wholly to promoting family policy as they define families. Other groups who have other interests on which they focus but who also handle family-related issues as they define families are not strictly family policy councils. For example, the American Library Association wants people to have access to information on all families and actively fights against people removing books about alternative families. So it promotes families as being anything anyone wants to define them as. Now I'm not saying that's good or bad. What I'm saying here is it takes positions supporting certain views regarding family structure, but it is not a family policy council.
- So if you wish to add polygamists, gay-rights activists, or even NAMBLA, you have to show its primary purpose is to protect and promote families giving its view of families as they see them.
- Lastly, the mere fact that many currently constituted family policy councils have conservative POVs regarding families does not necessarily make this article in and of itself POV.
- In any case, I am glad to see others contributing here. Please continue to do so. --
LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 07:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Based on my above comments, I suggest the NPOV tag can be removed without problem. I'll leave that for you, if you agree. -- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 07:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think there's been some scope creep here. I was under the impression that the article was listing Family Policy Councils, a specific group defined by Focus on the Family. [1] In other words, I was under the impression that FPC was a "brand name" rather than a general term for a family-focused organization. eaolson 02:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting. I never realized that was the case. Is it? So far as this article is concerned, FOTF is irrelevant except as being a member of the set generically called family policy councils (lower case letters). -- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 03:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I see no reason why the npov tag should stay given the above comments/responses and given no further comments are being made. I'll remove it in about a week if there is no further conversation on the matter here. -- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 00:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Seeing no further conversation, I'm removing the npov tag. -- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 00:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Doing a little Googling, it seems that the term "Family Policy Council" is used virtually exclusively in the context of [ this program] run by Focus on the Family. It doesn't seem to ever be used as a generic term for a family-oriented organization. There is one exception of a Washington state organization, but that's it. I think the article should be revised to reflect this. eaolson 15:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting point. That Washington state organization is indeed a state organization. Further, a look at it shows it is not what one would call "conservative." But this page is not political. The politics of the organizations is incidental to their function in support of families, in their own views. And this is just a wiki page about family policy councils, definitely not FOTF's view of family policy councils. The presence of the Washington state organization is evidence that this page is apolitical as in it does not care what are the politics of the organization, just that they see themselves as supporting family values as they define them. Therefore, I will remove the POV tag. Besides, there are other ways to remedy the situation. Like maybe change the page name. You know, I think it was originally named without the capital letters then moved to use the caps version. So maybe the page could be moved back to lower case family policy councils, just like the Washington state agency is named. Alright? Do you have an alternatative name for them? Family support organizations? Hey, I won't remove the tag until you're happy or just merely obstinate. Hopefully you'll be happy as the goal is an improved, wiki worthy page. Okay?
- Oh, changing the article to discuss the one exception seems a little nit picky or irrelevant to me in the scheme of this being merely an encyclopedic page on family whatevers. So I'm not against it, but if the changes don't really improve the article, I'll object on that basis. -- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 00:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, my mistake. Someone else added the NPOV tag. I'll address that there. -- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 00:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Cool, someone just added family policy councils from the other side of the political spectrum on which the current ones exist. Great! -- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 03:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems like we're getting some serious scope creep in this article. The title alone is odd, especially the word "Council." It seems to me this article started out as a list of programs in the Family Research Council's "Family Policy Council" thing. That's a very specific criteria. Now it's broadened into "any organization having to do with families." For example, the "Families like mine" link has nothing to do with governmental policy. Same with PFOX. This is starting to stray into indiscriminate list category. eaolson 16:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
"traditional" family values is POV.
Your use of the word "liberal" in regards to families with interracial parents, same-sex partners, and single parents is also not appropriate. -- DCX ( talk) 20:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Several points have been made that no one has taken action on. I'll do so if I can be assured that my work won't be swept away two minutes later. I've researched this, and it is clear that Family Policy Council is a "brand name" of Focus on the Family and the Family Research Center. It is a name used by them for their state affiliates. (In other words, FOTF itself is not an FPC, even though it shares their agenda.) To put it simply, the term FPC has entered the lexicon because of the FOTF organizations, so that's how it should be covered. While there have obviously always been groups working to help children and provide support for parents, the FPCs started by FOTF are a specific type of organization with a pretty specific (and pretty uniform) conservative agenda. Of course, the article should still make clear that there are organizations with different and sometimes opposing agendas, and that the generic term family policy council might be said to apply to some of them. I'll spend some time on this after hearing no objection, or better yet, some words of agreement. Historydude58 ( talk) 08:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, my research also indicates that "family policy council" functions as a brand name of Focus on the Family state affiliates, with one or two exceptions, namely a government coalition in Washington State that shared the name. I agree that organizations with different or opposing agendas deserve a mention too. I've tried my best to sort all that out in the first few paragraphs, and back it up with an "Origin" section and citations Jno.skinner ( talk) 07:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Family Policy Council. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090320155751/http://www.flfamily.org/uploadfile/2008%20-%20upload/Coalition%20Letter%20-%20Final.pdf to http://www.flfamily.org/uploadfile/2008%20-%20upload/Coalition%20Letter%20-%20Final.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Family Policy Council. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061219120719/http://www.citizenlink.org:80/fpc/ to http://www.citizenlink.org/fpc/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I've overhauled this whole article. There seemed to be long-running ambiguity concerning if "family policy council" is to be treated as a generic (and lower-cased) term designating many types of groups, or if is to be treated as a proper noun, a "brand name" of Focus on the Family. After research, it seems that in the mid 1990s the term was floating around, designating a couple different things, but that today it's used exclusively in the "brand name" sense. I've changed the article to reflect this, added an "Origins" section detailing what I know of the etymology, and "Operations" and "Impact" sections with additional cited research. If anyone's looking at this, let me know what you think. Jno.skinner ( talk) 02:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Family Policy Council article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
|
| This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
There is no assertion made that these organizations are related other than they deal with "family" issues. They don't even all have "family policy" as part of their title. Where does the link between them come from? If it's not supported by a verified external source, that would suggest this link is original research. eaolson 04:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- No, not original research. These sites are all related. Here are just 2 sites showing such relations: 1, 2.
- Further, I don't know the policy but it's common sense for this page to be here. Why? People might want to find family policy councils or find info about them -- find the kind of info for which wikipedia is perfectly suited. That's the whole purpose of wikipedia. The only reason not to have such a page is if one had a POV that such organizations are of insignificant value or do not deserve such a page.
- Granted the page is sparse now but wiki allows sparse pages to go up then get worked on by other editors--the very purpose of wikipedia since so far as I know, no professional jobs are perfectly done the first time.
- Here's a List of LGBT-related organizations. You are not suggesting, are you, that such a page is wikiworthy but a similar page of family policy councils is not wikiworthy? And look: "It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with List of gay-rights organizations. (Discuss)" Well that's what I suggest be done here by creating just such a page right from the start.
- I hope these arguments persuade you and I do not have to have another long battle with someone else seeking special treatment for his or her own special interests despite wikipedia policy. I am not saying that's you. I'm just saying I hope you do not remove the page because of your personal feelings about its contents. Further, I hope you're not the kind that insists "verified external sources" means only sources you think are verifiable, as opposed to wiki policy.
- Again, I'm not saying that's you. But your first statement on this page is to question it's inclusion, even though I asked others (in history) to help and said I had more to add. One would think a fellow wikipedian's first reaction would be how to make a page better, rather than probing to determine reasons for tearing it down. So understand why I am legitimately concerned I may have to repeatedly point out wikipedia policy and obtain assistance of others so as to allow wikipedia to be wikipedia, not some detractor's personal playground.
- Please, just try to improve the page or let others do so. Thank you. --
LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 05:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- If you point for the legitimacy is the list of LGBT organizations, than this article should be renamed "List of conservative family policy organizations" and it should be stylistically harmonized with the
List of LGBT-related organizations. And it should not give a false impression that the groups listed are working collaboratively.
Netbenefit 23:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Okay. I see you added a fact tag to loosely-knit. Good eye. This article is about family orgs in general, not the loosly knit ones. For example, the left leaning Washington State Family Policy Council is included. So adding loosely knit is a bit POV. I agree. I'll fix it and remove the POV tag. Thanks. -- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 00:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- If you point for the legitimacy is the list of LGBT organizations, than this article should be renamed "List of conservative family policy organizations" and it should be stylistically harmonized with the
List of LGBT-related organizations. And it should not give a false impression that the groups listed are working collaboratively.
Netbenefit 23:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
A modest but incomplete review of the listed organizations show that they are not only organizations which promote children and families, but a particular conservative POV as to what benefits and harms children and families. This view is not shared by other groups, such as polygamy or gay-rights activists, many of whom feel that they are promoting a different view of what makes for positive families and environments for children. This leaves the article, in my (potentially biased opinion) POV. -- Joe Decker 17:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- So go ahead and add such groups here as well. Perhaps give a definition of family as defined by the various groups. For example, in Canada, a court has just ruled that a child may legally have three parents.
- But maybe not. Consider family is already a wiki page where such information is more appropriate. No need to discuss the definitions of family here where another page exists for that.
- Further, the different groups that have differing views of families may not promote themselves as family policy councils. This article is about family policy councils, specifically people who create an organization devoted almost wholly to promoting family policy as they define families. Other groups who have other interests on which they focus but who also handle family-related issues as they define families are not strictly family policy councils. For example, the American Library Association wants people to have access to information on all families and actively fights against people removing books about alternative families. So it promotes families as being anything anyone wants to define them as. Now I'm not saying that's good or bad. What I'm saying here is it takes positions supporting certain views regarding family structure, but it is not a family policy council.
- So if you wish to add polygamists, gay-rights activists, or even NAMBLA, you have to show its primary purpose is to protect and promote families giving its view of families as they see them.
- Lastly, the mere fact that many currently constituted family policy councils have conservative POVs regarding families does not necessarily make this article in and of itself POV.
- In any case, I am glad to see others contributing here. Please continue to do so. --
LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 07:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Based on my above comments, I suggest the NPOV tag can be removed without problem. I'll leave that for you, if you agree. -- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 07:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think there's been some scope creep here. I was under the impression that the article was listing Family Policy Councils, a specific group defined by Focus on the Family. [1] In other words, I was under the impression that FPC was a "brand name" rather than a general term for a family-focused organization. eaolson 02:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting. I never realized that was the case. Is it? So far as this article is concerned, FOTF is irrelevant except as being a member of the set generically called family policy councils (lower case letters). -- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 03:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I see no reason why the npov tag should stay given the above comments/responses and given no further comments are being made. I'll remove it in about a week if there is no further conversation on the matter here. -- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 00:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Seeing no further conversation, I'm removing the npov tag. -- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 00:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Doing a little Googling, it seems that the term "Family Policy Council" is used virtually exclusively in the context of [ this program] run by Focus on the Family. It doesn't seem to ever be used as a generic term for a family-oriented organization. There is one exception of a Washington state organization, but that's it. I think the article should be revised to reflect this. eaolson 15:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting point. That Washington state organization is indeed a state organization. Further, a look at it shows it is not what one would call "conservative." But this page is not political. The politics of the organizations is incidental to their function in support of families, in their own views. And this is just a wiki page about family policy councils, definitely not FOTF's view of family policy councils. The presence of the Washington state organization is evidence that this page is apolitical as in it does not care what are the politics of the organization, just that they see themselves as supporting family values as they define them. Therefore, I will remove the POV tag. Besides, there are other ways to remedy the situation. Like maybe change the page name. You know, I think it was originally named without the capital letters then moved to use the caps version. So maybe the page could be moved back to lower case family policy councils, just like the Washington state agency is named. Alright? Do you have an alternatative name for them? Family support organizations? Hey, I won't remove the tag until you're happy or just merely obstinate. Hopefully you'll be happy as the goal is an improved, wiki worthy page. Okay?
- Oh, changing the article to discuss the one exception seems a little nit picky or irrelevant to me in the scheme of this being merely an encyclopedic page on family whatevers. So I'm not against it, but if the changes don't really improve the article, I'll object on that basis. -- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 00:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, my mistake. Someone else added the NPOV tag. I'll address that there. -- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 00:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Cool, someone just added family policy councils from the other side of the political spectrum on which the current ones exist. Great! -- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 03:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems like we're getting some serious scope creep in this article. The title alone is odd, especially the word "Council." It seems to me this article started out as a list of programs in the Family Research Council's "Family Policy Council" thing. That's a very specific criteria. Now it's broadened into "any organization having to do with families." For example, the "Families like mine" link has nothing to do with governmental policy. Same with PFOX. This is starting to stray into indiscriminate list category. eaolson 16:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
"traditional" family values is POV.
Your use of the word "liberal" in regards to families with interracial parents, same-sex partners, and single parents is also not appropriate. -- DCX ( talk) 20:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Several points have been made that no one has taken action on. I'll do so if I can be assured that my work won't be swept away two minutes later. I've researched this, and it is clear that Family Policy Council is a "brand name" of Focus on the Family and the Family Research Center. It is a name used by them for their state affiliates. (In other words, FOTF itself is not an FPC, even though it shares their agenda.) To put it simply, the term FPC has entered the lexicon because of the FOTF organizations, so that's how it should be covered. While there have obviously always been groups working to help children and provide support for parents, the FPCs started by FOTF are a specific type of organization with a pretty specific (and pretty uniform) conservative agenda. Of course, the article should still make clear that there are organizations with different and sometimes opposing agendas, and that the generic term family policy council might be said to apply to some of them. I'll spend some time on this after hearing no objection, or better yet, some words of agreement. Historydude58 ( talk) 08:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, my research also indicates that "family policy council" functions as a brand name of Focus on the Family state affiliates, with one or two exceptions, namely a government coalition in Washington State that shared the name. I agree that organizations with different or opposing agendas deserve a mention too. I've tried my best to sort all that out in the first few paragraphs, and back it up with an "Origin" section and citations Jno.skinner ( talk) 07:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Family Policy Council. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090320155751/http://www.flfamily.org/uploadfile/2008%20-%20upload/Coalition%20Letter%20-%20Final.pdf to http://www.flfamily.org/uploadfile/2008%20-%20upload/Coalition%20Letter%20-%20Final.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Family Policy Council. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061219120719/http://www.citizenlink.org:80/fpc/ to http://www.citizenlink.org/fpc/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I've overhauled this whole article. There seemed to be long-running ambiguity concerning if "family policy council" is to be treated as a generic (and lower-cased) term designating many types of groups, or if is to be treated as a proper noun, a "brand name" of Focus on the Family. After research, it seems that in the mid 1990s the term was floating around, designating a couple different things, but that today it's used exclusively in the "brand name" sense. I've changed the article to reflect this, added an "Origins" section detailing what I know of the etymology, and "Operations" and "Impact" sections with additional cited research. If anyone's looking at this, let me know what you think. Jno.skinner ( talk) 02:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)