Talk:Focus on the Family

message: I noticed that the description cites a primary source but a secondary one could be used instead.  Here are some relevant but also miscellaneous sources found while searching.
* https://www.metroweekly.com/2020/08/christian-group-that-believes-gay-people-cause-disease-declared-covid-outbreak-site/
* https://thehumanist.com/magazine/july-august-2018/features/theocratic-mercenary-erik-prince-christian-right/
* https://slate.com/human-interest/2021/01/trump-capitol-riot-evangelical-leaders-reactions.html
* https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2005/dozen-major-groups-help-drive-religious-right%E2%80%99s-anti-gay-crusade
* https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1375/religious-right
* https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/10/my-fundamentalist-childhood-jessica-wilbanks-book (the exact group referred at first there is another one however, but FoF has mentions)
* https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/3/5/16796892/trump-cyrus-christian-right-bible-cbn-evangelical-propaganda
* https://www.salon.com/2021/05/11/anna-duggar-quiverfull-wife-mother-vyckie-garrison/
* https://theconversation.com/faith-and-politics-mix-to-drive-evangelical-christians-climate-change-denial-143145
* https://www.newyorker.com/news/on-religion/the-unmaking-of-biblical-womanhood
* https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1990/08/08/the-empire-built-on-family-faith/a2b300eb-25f8-4925-af24-ce076c620f51/
* https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/religion-and-american-culture/article/conservative-christianity-and-the-creation-of-alternative-news-an-analysis-of-focus-on-the-familys-multimedia-empire/104B94DD4CACF996F9DCB2BF3A8DE25C
* https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/09/us/focus-on-the-family-transforms-its-message.html
* https://books.google.com/books?id=oPTKDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA130 (Family Matters: James Dobson and Focus on the Family's Crusade for the Christian Home book p. 130)
—PaleoNeonate – 09:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fundamentalism and potential sources for misc. expansion 

message: I've restored the content about their political activity to the "Political activity" section. It's not appropriate to cordon off their misuse of research into "Controversies" simply because some people might find it shows them in a worse light than their political endorsements or ad purchases. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rv 

message: This article says more about what this organization is against than what it is for. It does not discuss the goals of this organization or what it hopes to accomplish. It was clearly written by someone who disagrees with its stances on controversial issues. This is a persuasive article, not an objective informative one. 66.216.241.80 (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you be specific as to what objective informative information is missing, and if possible provide third-party sources for it? FotF's wading into controversia issues is indeed likely to get attention, for that is the nature of controversy -- and Wikipedia's direction is to cover what third party reliable sources are likely to cover. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias