This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Regarding the description of the Illinois Family Institute, the "About" page on their website ( "About") does refer to "Judeo-Christian" teachings at the top, but later references to the organization refer to them as a Christian organization (cf. "educate Christians," "consistent with Biblical Christianity" and "relationship with other Christian ministries," all of which are in the third graf). I would like to solicit other editors' opinions on whether this is sufficient to call the organization a "Christian organization." Thanks!
Windchaser ( talk) 21:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Illinois Family Institute has been designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group based on "their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities." Should this be included in the WP:Lead as a notable criticism? Insomesia ( talk) 20:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
“ | Articles published in The Nation, Harper's, and even the SPLC's hometown newspaper, the Montgomery Advertiser all make the same assertion: the SPLC exaggerates, and manipulates incidents of "hate"... | ” |
– MrX 20:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Church & State Blurb
|
---|
Among the other Religious Right organizations designated as hate groups by the SPLC were: the American Family Association, the Illinois Family Institute and the Traditional Values Coalition. |
Chicago Jewish Star Blurb
|
---|
Intelligence Report compiled data in the same issue on 18 anti-gay groups, two of which are located in Illinois: Heterosexuals Organized for a Moral Environment (HOME, in Downers Grove) and Illinois Family Institute (IFI, in Carol Stream). Both groups are classified by the SPLC as hate groups, "based on their propagation of known falsehoods." ...(omitted content about HOME) IFI calls for repeals of all laws protecting gay rights; touts a groundless claim that the median age of death for gay men is 42; and their director for school advocacy, Laurie Higgins, last year compared homosexuality to Nazism, states Intelligence Report. |
There is backlog in AN/RFC. I think it's safe to say that 13 Include vs. 6 Exclude constitutes a rough consensus. That's even before discounting BelchFire's comments, which no longer apply since there are now three sources. – MrX 02:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I think, in fact, I would prefer (2), since it is backed by the Chicago Jewish Star. (3) would be my next preference, then (1). St Anselm ( talk) 02:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I think the deleted information about why SPLC considers Illinois Family Institute a hate group should be restored fully.
In it's Hatewatch, the SPLC states the designation was based on the association with Paul Cameron, a researcher who has been disassociated from professional organizations American Psychological Association, [1] the Nebraska Psychological Association, [2] and the Canadian Psychological Association, [3] the later for "consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism." [3] [4] [5]
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
The Canadian Psychological Association takes the position that Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism and thus, it formally disassociates itself from the representation and interpretations of scientific literature in his writings and public statements on sexuality. (August 1996)
The Canadian Psychological Association takes the position that Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism and thus, it formally disassociates itself from the representation and interpretations of scientific literature in his writings and public statements on sexuality.
is explicit and avoids the use of Wikipedia's voice making declarations but let's work through this word for word. Insomesia ( talk) 00:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I reverted to the "pre-BLP" version because of the BLP claim. Can we talk about the BLP concerns?
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer 02:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, I guess I need to respond here, although I stand by my point of the insertion being a coatrack. The offending text was about a third of the article. That is massively undue weight - talking about the doing of someone who has no affiliation with the organization. But also, the current statement relies on the Intelligence Report, whereas the insertion in question relied on the Hatewatch blog. Whatever our opinions of the reliability, neutrality and significance of SPLC criticism, I'm sure we'd all agree that blog statements are not going to be as good as the Intelligence Report publications. I draw your attention to WP:SPS (emphasis original):
Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so. Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.
Although the Psychological Association sources may be reliable, the only way we can connect Paul Cameron to this group is through a blog post. So I don't know why we're even having this discussion - it simply doesn't belong. Also, I'd like to see evidence that Potok is an expert - does he have "reliable third-party publications"? St Anselm ( talk) 11:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC) St Anselm ( talk) 11:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me, but whatever this is, it's not a BLP issue. It would be a BLP issue if, for example, we made false and negative statements about Cameron. This is, at most, some quibbling about relevance combined with attempts to ignore the fact that SPLC is considered a reliable source. So, since it's not a BLP issue, I trust that nobody here will be trying to edit war under cover of "oh, I had to revert that because BLP".
Now, as for the issue, I don't see any plausible argument for excluding Cameron. If there's one buried in this discussion, I'd like you to summarize it below. I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 20:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC) I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 20:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm a bit disappointed that no-one has responded to my point that we're not looking at SPLC as a reliable source here, but at an SPLC blog being a reliable source. St Anselm ( talk) 22:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Note that Mr. X was canvassed to come here and interfere with the RfC. [4] I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 05:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I just reverted this change because it's based on the mistaken idea that it's somehow libelous to state that the IFI was designated as a hate group by the SPLC. We state this for many other hate groups, from the FRC to the KKK, and we do so in safety because our reliable secondary sources are comfortable doing the same. I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 16:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the {{LGBT}} template to the article per designation by the SPLC. - Balph Eubank ✉ 18:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
-
Balph Eubank
✉ 18:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
No, it's a hate group, and the reason it is one comes down to its anti-gay statements. As such, an LGBT template seems relevant, since the group is dedicated to LGBT-related issues (from the anti-LGBT side). Arthur typical inability to see relevance notwithstanding, this is a pretty obvious fit. I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 06:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I've been trawling through google looking for references that aren't dated 2012, to avoid Wikipedia:Recentism. I've found a couple. Same-old: [5] [6] [7]; creationism / evolution: [8] [9] [10] [11] Stuartyeates ( talk) 00:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
There appears to be an issue here about claims by the IFI regarding life expectancy by gay men. If those claims are false, we should have a WP:MEDRS confirming the falsity (and, ideally, giving the true life expectancy), rather than just a statement from a law firm that the claims are hateful. A possible addition is "scientists who calculated these life expectancies object to the use of their data by conservative organizations" ( [12]). -- 202.124.75.42 ( talk) 06:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Epidemiologists Morten Frisch and Henrik Brønnum-Hansen argue that Cameron was wrong to infer reduced life expectancy from the fact that deaths among homosexually married partners in Denmark and Norway occurred at a lower median age than those among heterosexually married partners: "Because the age distribution among persons in same-sex marriages was considerably younger than that of people who had ever been heterosexually married, the average age at death among those who actually died during the observation period was, not surprisingly, considerably younger in the population of same-sex married persons." Their own analysis found that excess mortality in Danish same-sex marriages since 1995 was "restricted to the first few years after a marriage, presumably reflecting preexisting illness at the time of marriage" [13]
It is important to point out that this is from work Cameron did in 2007. Therefore, the "resolutions passed against Cameron" were not on this issue, and the sentence should be removed from the article. St Anselm ( talk) 06:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
The POV tag is due to the strong use of Wikipedia's voice in the lead. I might add there is no consensus for keeping the last statement, but tag-team edting is keeping it in despite the lack thereof.
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer 19:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Right, it's required in the lead, yet this violates it. As MrX points out, you'd think the IFI was something other than a hate group because we make the mistake of quoting its stated goals instead of its demonstrated actions. In short, there is a POV/weight problem, but it's not in the direction you imagine. I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 05:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
*Comment The pov tag has been removed with the edit comment, "The lede now has a (self-serving) qualitative statement attributed to the subject organization and a qualitative statement by an authoritative organization. This seems like a reasonably NPOV lede now, thus I removed the POV tag.)" Unscintillating ( talk) 06:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
The
neutrality of this article is
disputed. |
I have restored this information to the lead:
I believe this direct quote from the source, explains everything:
Over the years, the group also has occasionally embraced the groundless propaganda of Paul Cameron (see Family Research Institute, above). Until 2009, it carried an article on Cameron — “New Study Shows that Homosexuals Live 20 Fewer Years” — preceded by a full-throated endorsement LaBarbera. “Paul Cameron’s work has been targeted for ridicule by homosexual activists, and he’s been demonized by the left,” LaBarbera wrote in his introduction, “but that should not discount his findings.” IFI also posted a video attacking school anti-bullying programs that claimed, based on Cameron, that gay men’s median age of death is 42. Both were removed in response to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s 2009 listing of IFI as a hate group, which was largely based on its use of Cameron.
...
Started in 1987 by psychologist Paul Cameron, the Family Research Institute (FRI) has become the anti-gay movement’s main source for what Cameron claims is “cutting-edge research” — but is, in fact, completely discredited junk science pushed out by a man who has been condemned by three professional organizations.
...Cameron’s colleagues have condemned him repeatedly.
...Cameron’s propaganda is widely known to be false or misleading — many groups have continued to use his claims, though often without citing their source. They include...the Illinois Family Institute
Southern Poverty Law Center - Intelligence Report, Winter 2010, Issue Number: 140
Link to the full source. – MrX 19:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Considering the flyby Anon IP editors (which resolve to Illinois) and SPAs appearing at this page in droves, it is clear to me that there's some serious whitewashing/astroturfing going on here by people with a conflict of interest. - Balph Eubank ✉ 20:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
An ip editor insists on inserting that IFI is a "Self-described" Christian orgnaization. What do the sources actually say about this?
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer 13:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
According to the Manual of Style we should avoid contentious labels (see WP:LABEL), but if we use such it should be with in-text attribution. Calling Paul Cameron's theories on homosexuality "discredited" in Wiki's voice would be such a label. If we want to use that description then it should be clearly attributed to our source, the SPLC, in-text. Otherwise, we should simply allow the reader to use the link to Paul Cameron to discover why the SPLC thinks his theories are bogus. Badmintonhist ( talk) 13:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Could someone please explain the reasoning behind this? I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 23:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I see no rationale put forward to justify this.
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer 01:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
At present, the lede text says it was founded in 1992 while the lede box says it was founded in 1990. Do we know which date is correct? Regards, AzureCitizen ( talk) 20:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
The fact that Labarbera founded yet another anti-gay hate group [15] is obviously relevant to the section about Labarbera. I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 20:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
IMHO, I think LaBarbera is a pretty clear example of the kind of folks who can't stop drinking the H-flavored coolaid. Reading some of the things he says in the quotations from the referenced sources makes it obvious, as well as the name he chose for AFTAH itself. While AFTAH's anti-gay SPLC designation is obviously relevant to encyclopedic coverage of AFTAH, however, I think Fat&Happy is right to the point out this article is about IFI, not LaBarbera or AFTAH. Are we sure we're not taking it one step too far by tacking on "and it's also an SPLC designated hate group too" (or words to that effect) on the tail end of the sentence? :) Regards, AzureCitizen ( talk) 21:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
The group is being called a hate group without getting any literal statements from the group itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Italian1995 ( talk • contribs) 01:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Illinois Family Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Pinging {{u|Posting here regarding the recent changes regarding Dan Savage's speech. Here is The Atlantic - nothing about it being anti-Christian. Here is Oregon Live - nothing about it being anti-Christian. NBC News - ditto. LA Times - ditto. Girth Summit (blether) 18:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Regarding the description of the Illinois Family Institute, the "About" page on their website ( "About") does refer to "Judeo-Christian" teachings at the top, but later references to the organization refer to them as a Christian organization (cf. "educate Christians," "consistent with Biblical Christianity" and "relationship with other Christian ministries," all of which are in the third graf). I would like to solicit other editors' opinions on whether this is sufficient to call the organization a "Christian organization." Thanks!
Windchaser ( talk) 21:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Illinois Family Institute has been designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group based on "their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities." Should this be included in the WP:Lead as a notable criticism? Insomesia ( talk) 20:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
“ | Articles published in The Nation, Harper's, and even the SPLC's hometown newspaper, the Montgomery Advertiser all make the same assertion: the SPLC exaggerates, and manipulates incidents of "hate"... | ” |
– MrX 20:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Church & State Blurb
|
---|
Among the other Religious Right organizations designated as hate groups by the SPLC were: the American Family Association, the Illinois Family Institute and the Traditional Values Coalition. |
Chicago Jewish Star Blurb
|
---|
Intelligence Report compiled data in the same issue on 18 anti-gay groups, two of which are located in Illinois: Heterosexuals Organized for a Moral Environment (HOME, in Downers Grove) and Illinois Family Institute (IFI, in Carol Stream). Both groups are classified by the SPLC as hate groups, "based on their propagation of known falsehoods." ...(omitted content about HOME) IFI calls for repeals of all laws protecting gay rights; touts a groundless claim that the median age of death for gay men is 42; and their director for school advocacy, Laurie Higgins, last year compared homosexuality to Nazism, states Intelligence Report. |
There is backlog in AN/RFC. I think it's safe to say that 13 Include vs. 6 Exclude constitutes a rough consensus. That's even before discounting BelchFire's comments, which no longer apply since there are now three sources. – MrX 02:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I think, in fact, I would prefer (2), since it is backed by the Chicago Jewish Star. (3) would be my next preference, then (1). St Anselm ( talk) 02:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I think the deleted information about why SPLC considers Illinois Family Institute a hate group should be restored fully.
In it's Hatewatch, the SPLC states the designation was based on the association with Paul Cameron, a researcher who has been disassociated from professional organizations American Psychological Association, [1] the Nebraska Psychological Association, [2] and the Canadian Psychological Association, [3] the later for "consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism." [3] [4] [5]
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
The Canadian Psychological Association takes the position that Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism and thus, it formally disassociates itself from the representation and interpretations of scientific literature in his writings and public statements on sexuality. (August 1996)
The Canadian Psychological Association takes the position that Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism and thus, it formally disassociates itself from the representation and interpretations of scientific literature in his writings and public statements on sexuality.
is explicit and avoids the use of Wikipedia's voice making declarations but let's work through this word for word. Insomesia ( talk) 00:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I reverted to the "pre-BLP" version because of the BLP claim. Can we talk about the BLP concerns?
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer 02:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, I guess I need to respond here, although I stand by my point of the insertion being a coatrack. The offending text was about a third of the article. That is massively undue weight - talking about the doing of someone who has no affiliation with the organization. But also, the current statement relies on the Intelligence Report, whereas the insertion in question relied on the Hatewatch blog. Whatever our opinions of the reliability, neutrality and significance of SPLC criticism, I'm sure we'd all agree that blog statements are not going to be as good as the Intelligence Report publications. I draw your attention to WP:SPS (emphasis original):
Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so. Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.
Although the Psychological Association sources may be reliable, the only way we can connect Paul Cameron to this group is through a blog post. So I don't know why we're even having this discussion - it simply doesn't belong. Also, I'd like to see evidence that Potok is an expert - does he have "reliable third-party publications"? St Anselm ( talk) 11:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC) St Anselm ( talk) 11:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me, but whatever this is, it's not a BLP issue. It would be a BLP issue if, for example, we made false and negative statements about Cameron. This is, at most, some quibbling about relevance combined with attempts to ignore the fact that SPLC is considered a reliable source. So, since it's not a BLP issue, I trust that nobody here will be trying to edit war under cover of "oh, I had to revert that because BLP".
Now, as for the issue, I don't see any plausible argument for excluding Cameron. If there's one buried in this discussion, I'd like you to summarize it below. I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 20:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC) I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 20:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm a bit disappointed that no-one has responded to my point that we're not looking at SPLC as a reliable source here, but at an SPLC blog being a reliable source. St Anselm ( talk) 22:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Note that Mr. X was canvassed to come here and interfere with the RfC. [4] I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 05:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I just reverted this change because it's based on the mistaken idea that it's somehow libelous to state that the IFI was designated as a hate group by the SPLC. We state this for many other hate groups, from the FRC to the KKK, and we do so in safety because our reliable secondary sources are comfortable doing the same. I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 16:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the {{LGBT}} template to the article per designation by the SPLC. - Balph Eubank ✉ 18:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
-
Balph Eubank
✉ 18:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
No, it's a hate group, and the reason it is one comes down to its anti-gay statements. As such, an LGBT template seems relevant, since the group is dedicated to LGBT-related issues (from the anti-LGBT side). Arthur typical inability to see relevance notwithstanding, this is a pretty obvious fit. I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 06:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I've been trawling through google looking for references that aren't dated 2012, to avoid Wikipedia:Recentism. I've found a couple. Same-old: [5] [6] [7]; creationism / evolution: [8] [9] [10] [11] Stuartyeates ( talk) 00:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
There appears to be an issue here about claims by the IFI regarding life expectancy by gay men. If those claims are false, we should have a WP:MEDRS confirming the falsity (and, ideally, giving the true life expectancy), rather than just a statement from a law firm that the claims are hateful. A possible addition is "scientists who calculated these life expectancies object to the use of their data by conservative organizations" ( [12]). -- 202.124.75.42 ( talk) 06:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Epidemiologists Morten Frisch and Henrik Brønnum-Hansen argue that Cameron was wrong to infer reduced life expectancy from the fact that deaths among homosexually married partners in Denmark and Norway occurred at a lower median age than those among heterosexually married partners: "Because the age distribution among persons in same-sex marriages was considerably younger than that of people who had ever been heterosexually married, the average age at death among those who actually died during the observation period was, not surprisingly, considerably younger in the population of same-sex married persons." Their own analysis found that excess mortality in Danish same-sex marriages since 1995 was "restricted to the first few years after a marriage, presumably reflecting preexisting illness at the time of marriage" [13]
It is important to point out that this is from work Cameron did in 2007. Therefore, the "resolutions passed against Cameron" were not on this issue, and the sentence should be removed from the article. St Anselm ( talk) 06:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
The POV tag is due to the strong use of Wikipedia's voice in the lead. I might add there is no consensus for keeping the last statement, but tag-team edting is keeping it in despite the lack thereof.
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer 19:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Right, it's required in the lead, yet this violates it. As MrX points out, you'd think the IFI was something other than a hate group because we make the mistake of quoting its stated goals instead of its demonstrated actions. In short, there is a POV/weight problem, but it's not in the direction you imagine. I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 05:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
*Comment The pov tag has been removed with the edit comment, "The lede now has a (self-serving) qualitative statement attributed to the subject organization and a qualitative statement by an authoritative organization. This seems like a reasonably NPOV lede now, thus I removed the POV tag.)" Unscintillating ( talk) 06:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
The
neutrality of this article is
disputed. |
I have restored this information to the lead:
I believe this direct quote from the source, explains everything:
Over the years, the group also has occasionally embraced the groundless propaganda of Paul Cameron (see Family Research Institute, above). Until 2009, it carried an article on Cameron — “New Study Shows that Homosexuals Live 20 Fewer Years” — preceded by a full-throated endorsement LaBarbera. “Paul Cameron’s work has been targeted for ridicule by homosexual activists, and he’s been demonized by the left,” LaBarbera wrote in his introduction, “but that should not discount his findings.” IFI also posted a video attacking school anti-bullying programs that claimed, based on Cameron, that gay men’s median age of death is 42. Both were removed in response to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s 2009 listing of IFI as a hate group, which was largely based on its use of Cameron.
...
Started in 1987 by psychologist Paul Cameron, the Family Research Institute (FRI) has become the anti-gay movement’s main source for what Cameron claims is “cutting-edge research” — but is, in fact, completely discredited junk science pushed out by a man who has been condemned by three professional organizations.
...Cameron’s colleagues have condemned him repeatedly.
...Cameron’s propaganda is widely known to be false or misleading — many groups have continued to use his claims, though often without citing their source. They include...the Illinois Family Institute
Southern Poverty Law Center - Intelligence Report, Winter 2010, Issue Number: 140
Link to the full source. – MrX 19:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Considering the flyby Anon IP editors (which resolve to Illinois) and SPAs appearing at this page in droves, it is clear to me that there's some serious whitewashing/astroturfing going on here by people with a conflict of interest. - Balph Eubank ✉ 20:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
An ip editor insists on inserting that IFI is a "Self-described" Christian orgnaization. What do the sources actually say about this?
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer 13:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
According to the Manual of Style we should avoid contentious labels (see WP:LABEL), but if we use such it should be with in-text attribution. Calling Paul Cameron's theories on homosexuality "discredited" in Wiki's voice would be such a label. If we want to use that description then it should be clearly attributed to our source, the SPLC, in-text. Otherwise, we should simply allow the reader to use the link to Paul Cameron to discover why the SPLC thinks his theories are bogus. Badmintonhist ( talk) 13:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Could someone please explain the reasoning behind this? I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 23:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I see no rationale put forward to justify this.
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer 01:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
At present, the lede text says it was founded in 1992 while the lede box says it was founded in 1990. Do we know which date is correct? Regards, AzureCitizen ( talk) 20:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
The fact that Labarbera founded yet another anti-gay hate group [15] is obviously relevant to the section about Labarbera. I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 20:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
IMHO, I think LaBarbera is a pretty clear example of the kind of folks who can't stop drinking the H-flavored coolaid. Reading some of the things he says in the quotations from the referenced sources makes it obvious, as well as the name he chose for AFTAH itself. While AFTAH's anti-gay SPLC designation is obviously relevant to encyclopedic coverage of AFTAH, however, I think Fat&Happy is right to the point out this article is about IFI, not LaBarbera or AFTAH. Are we sure we're not taking it one step too far by tacking on "and it's also an SPLC designated hate group too" (or words to that effect) on the tail end of the sentence? :) Regards, AzureCitizen ( talk) 21:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
The group is being called a hate group without getting any literal statements from the group itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Italian1995 ( talk • contribs) 01:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Illinois Family Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Pinging {{u|Posting here regarding the recent changes regarding Dan Savage's speech. Here is The Atlantic - nothing about it being anti-Christian. Here is Oregon Live - nothing about it being anti-Christian. NBC News - ditto. LA Times - ditto. Girth Summit (blether) 18:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)