Talk:Courage International

message: I changed the phrase in the intro graf from "same-sex-oriented Catholics who seek to refrain from adopting a 'gay' identity" to "same-sex-oriented Catholics wishing to live celbately" because I really wasn't sure what "adopting a gay identity" means.  It could be anything from being celibate to butching up their image. I'm not entirely happy with this phrasing, but I think it's more clear. As I understand it, Courage does not seek to change one's orientation, just control one's sexual behavior (but I could be wrong). eaolson 16:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be correct. Nothing I've found about it indicates it believes in or advocates making someone "ex-gay." I imagine it does reject a "gay identity" as Catholicism rejects making sexual orientation one's identity and considers homosexuality a disorder. I believe Catholics are not to have a gay-identity in the same way we're not to have a BDSM-identity or a shoe-fetish-identity. Catholics may incidentally have such propensities, but those are to be incidental and not defining.--T. Anthony 11:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Seeking

message: I haev been copyediting and reorganizing some here, and noticed there seems to be a lot of material regarding DignityUSA, especially detailed contrasts to it.  I am not sure how much is relevant, as it reads like a soapbox for that organization, and it at best ancillary.  
I started redoing some of it, but more needs to be done.  If anyone can add some context (and some refs), perhaps that contrast can stand to be so fully developed.  Otherwise, I will continue.  Thanks, Baccyak4H (Yak!) 21:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I did it.  I removed the reference to DignityUSA.  It has its own article, and no sourcing to compare it on this page.  But if anyone finds some good sources to reintroduce, let's talk about it here.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  DignityUSA 

message: Courage International runs two programs: Courage (for people with same-sex attraction) and EnCourage (for their families and friends). The original text NOT written by me, included sections on the goals for each. Roscelese seems to be on a tear to confuse and obfuscate. I did not contribute the original content. Roscelese deleted on the personal, unsubstantiated, and prejudicial opinion that they are extraneous material. I suspect that she thinks that I was the author. REPEAT: I AM NOT, so leave them be. See also the ongoing discussions at Talk:John F. Harvey and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John F. Harvey.  If an administrator is watching Roscelese's activities on articles related to same-sex attraction and Catholic teaching, please send a cease and desist warning. Hoestermann 21:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I briefly returned them, but the links were dead-links from what I could tell. If you can source it with a link that's active I'd be fine with returning it.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I returned them, and fixed the dead links.  I think the actual goals of Courage and Encourage are important because one of the many complaints around this group from certain communities is that this is an orientation changing group, a gay shaming group or other slander against them.  It is important to list their purposes as they state them.  There are many other sources for these purposes but they are only listed in their actual format in Catholic publications which I am sure a certain user will not agree to.  Listing the goals of a group as long as they are identified as the goals as stated by the group is an acceptable use of a primary source.Marauder40 (talk) 12:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not Wikipedia's responsibility to clear up nebulous misunderstandings, and if it were, you should nonetheless be able to do so in a way that conforms to policy. Marauder40, I'm sure you know how tired I am of having the "Wikipedia is not free advertising" conversation, so why not just give it a pass by 1) finding a reliable secondary source to demonstrate that anyone actually cares about these "goals" and 2) summing them up briefly and neutrally? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Listing goals/policies as stated by the group does conform to WP policies. As I said before I can find several Catholic sources that list the goals of Courage and what it does and why it does it, but you have a history of not liking Catholic newspapers and other sources like that even though they are permitted on WP as reliable sources.  There are several Catholic newspapers that list the goals, there are also several diocese web pages that list the goals, etc.  Just search on "goals of Courage" turns up tons of hits.  There is lots of coverage within the Catholic community about Courage.  Outside the Catholic community people discount them as if they are just another orientation change ministry and tend to ignore them unless it is Dignity trashing them. Is this article secondary enough for you,  Marauder40 (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As you know, Washington Times (not the same thing as Washington Post) is not a great source, but I also don't see that it has this brochure-like bullet-point list of goals that you're trying to include. If what you consider important to put in is the fact that they're not an ex-gay group, that is supported by this article, and possibly by better ones. Would you swap the list of goals for a statement that they're not an ex-gay group, since you mentioned in your earlier comment that your reason for including the brochure-like list was to make it clear that they're not an ex-gay group? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

text: Well, I don't think "other low-traffic pages may or may not contain similar spammy content" is a great argument. Sometimes it's just because no one has got around to removing it... –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

text: I know other articles aren't necessarily an argument for or against things. And I said "not standard or forbidden" which is hardly an "it must be in!!!" statement. I don't think it's spammy though. Perhaps it's unnecessary or redundant information, but that's not what I think of as "spammy." I'm not strong either way. However if listing these goals is significant to the organization, and they can be sourced by something other than their own website, I do feel if it makes sense to have them. If that's not the case it makes sense to remove them, as I briefly did after I brought them back.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you found any good sources for this content? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said I'm not strong on this issue either way, I've largely tried to hope for some kind of middle-ground or outside party opinion, I might not be sufficiently motivated to look. Still I suppose I could give a quick look.--T. Anthony (talk) 14:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: On doing so I found the National Catholic Reporter, a Catholic-oriented magazine but primarily a liberal/progressive one that is often at odds with the Church, says their five goals are significant to their ministry. As it clearly says the goals are significant, and it's a source not affiliated with the organization (indeed the comments page is largely hostile to this group), I now definitely lean toward keeping the goals in. Whether they need to be listed in this way, or mentioned some other way, I'll remain more neutral on. Possibly you could argue the statement in the opening, "Its goals are primarily grounded on chastity, piety and the promotion of compassionate and charitable works", is sufficient though I think a bit more expansion than that makes sense.--T. Anthony (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Does your source actually list the goals in this manner? I'm not sure "members of the group believe that the group's goals are important" is any kind of unusual statement or indicates that the source takes note of the goals. Edit: Just realized that you had added the source. So no, they do not list the goals in this brochure-like manner. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: So is how they're listed in this the concern? I'm open to it not being in this bullet-point format, but this seems a bit particular. Granted Wikipedia's a pretty particular place, but I'm not sure why this is still that big a thing. (I could see including some on criticism and controversy as there is bound to be some that's notable.)--T. Anthony (talk) 04:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's included in far more detail, and far more overblown language, than the sources warrant. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent deletions by Roscelese

message: Why is it "totally unnecessary" to have a separate heading to cover material with criticism of the organisation? It's a highly controversial organisation, and the article benefits from having some sense of that. If you think a heading is not needed then please set out clearly the arguments. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:CSECTION, criticism should be integrated into the body of the article, not segregated into a ghetto of negativity. Besides, it is just one paragraph. Or do you intend on fleshing it out? Elizium23 (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't comment on this section being "segregated into a ghetto of negativity" - I don't share that view, but recognise that you are entitled to regarded criticism or controversy as a purely negative thing if that's the approach you take. In any case I have been working to flesh this out and will continue. There is a lot more still to be said. The section is now longer than that of either the history or the organisation. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Pure and simple, have you read the link that has been sent to you SEVERAL times?  WP:NOCRIT.  Since you seem to be unable to follow the link, here is an important portion of the page, "In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Articles should present positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources fairly, proportionately, and without bias."  Criticism sections are supposed to be integrated into the flow of the overall article.  Since you are still in the process of flushing it out, I will not outright remove the section itself, but you need to integrate it into the overall article if you want it to stay. I also question your RS.  A grad students dissertation doesn't usually qualify as a RS.  In addition to the use of the RS, I also question the references that are being used.  Several quotes attributed to the dissertation do not even appear in the dissertation.  It appears the RS currently being used is just an attempt to give a source to the WP editors own POV, not what is actually in the dissertation.Marauder40 (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Articles should present positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources fairly, proportionately, and without bias." Should be avoided is not, of course, the same as "may on no occasion be included". "Criticism sections are supposed to be integrated into the flow of the overall article" are your words - not that of any specific guidance. But I stand to be corrected if you can point to guidance that does indeed make that point. The section is already integrated. Regarding the source, can I refer you to WP:RS which says "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources." I've exercised care. If there are specifics in terms of quotes then please clarify what they are rather than a lazy reference to my "POV". Also funny how I bump into you on a regular basis Maruader40. It's clearly a small world.Contaldo80 (talk) 13:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

text: There is a lot more still to be said. The section is now longer than that of either the history or the organisation.  Textbook WP:UNDUE. Elizium23 (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Elizium23. Nice seeing you here by the way. Hope you find time to track down the ten other articles I've been editing recently and give your take on them. Incidentally 3 to 4 paragraphs on criticism is not UNDUE. The rest of the article is short - that's nothing to do with me, and if you are concerned then I suggest you get going and flesh out the other sections.Contaldo80 (talk) 13:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

text: Criticism sections are discouraged. Including well-sourced critical material in the sections on the organization's history or operations is the way to go, not a separate section. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Now it's back in by stealth and WP:EW Elizium23 (talk) 23:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no "stealth" - if you're accusing me of dishonesty then just go out and say it. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Describing gay people is unacceptable to this editor. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not free web space for propagandistic rhetoric. What Widr considers disruptive editing, I consider just plain editing. The language before my revisions was divisive, unencyclopedic, and dismissive to an entire category of human beings.  Consider this my invitation to dispute resolution.  Consider also that I will not roll over on account of a temporary freeze when that freeze expires. 
It is fine that this article accurately records CIs attempt to undermine the scientific consensus that homosexuality is not harmful to human welfare. It is not ok that its highly parochial language, used nowhere outside of antigay religious environments such as CI itself, be conflated with the majoritarian secular understanding that sexual orientation is a fundamental and morally neuter property of human nature. In a secular context, backhandedly describing gay people as “same-sex attracted individuals” is as belittling and offensive as repeatedly using the phrase “people with black skin” or “Americans struggling with African ancestry.” It is language that incorrectly connotes sexual orientation as optional while also implicitly suggesting that repression of one's sexual orientation may be something other than what it factually is: extremely harmful to human development and the wellbeing of society. It is language designed to subtly dehumanize gay people and confuse readers about the empirical realities CI seeks to deny. It is language that is offensive and unacceptable. 2601:5CA:4000:D58:C480:4F51:FA7A:CB4D (talk) 14:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  May 6th's repeat reversions to biased language

message: It "ministers to those with homosexual or same-sex attractions" is a perfectly acceptable in it current form, as a quote from the organization regarding what it doe; limiting the phrase "same-sex attraction" to the line avoids any further controversy.  In the rest of the article, the sources appear to use the term "homosexual(ity)" rather than "gay"; thus, the article must follow the terms used by the sources. --Zfish118⋉talk 04:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That said, the article relies largely on poor and/or biased sources. We should take that into account. I must recommend, again, that we use encyclopedic, neutral language and that non-neutral language be confined to quotes. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That said, it is imperative that one or two users' own conception of what constitutes "biased language" not dictate everyone else's legitimate linguistic choices.   Deus vult (aliquid)!   Crusadestudent (talk) 04:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not disagree.  I have had no prior involvement with this article, and am only commenting on the version as of today; the article is still in need of copy editing, but the majority of controversial teachings of the organization appear to be directly quoted as you suggest. --Zfish118⋉talk 04:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Observations 

message: I am uncertain why this article is listed as a "High-importance" to Wikiprojects WP:Roman Curia and WP:Vatican City.  These appear to be recent additions, so I have provisionally removed them altogether.  While this is certainly a notable Catholic organization, I do not believe it has any direct ties to Rome, except a few encouraging words (pun not intended) from certain cardinals.  It would seem mid- to low-importance in WP:Catholicism, and certainly leaning towards low-importance on the other projects if some one feels strongly enough to relist either.  The code is provided below for reference. --Zfish118⋉talk 04:45, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like they're still there...  Deus vult (aliquid)!   Crusadestudent (talk) 04:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit conflict canceled the edit - thanks for point that out! --Zfish118⋉talk 04:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiprojects  

message: I started a thread about including Courage International and other groups on the addictions and recovery project page. Wanted to mention it here in case any editors had opinions on way or another. - Scarpy (talk) 23:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Addictions and recovery]] project 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Encourage. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  signed, Rosguill talk 05:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Encourage" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Removed "Courage doesn't consider itself an ex-gay group" (sourced to its website). "SPLC is wrong that it's an ex-gay group; identifying as gay is reductive, so really none of the people whom we helped pray to subdue their same-sex sexuality were gay to begin with" is weak. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rv 

message: I've restored the description of New Ways Ministry as Catholic. Wikipedia doesn't follow the jargon definition according to which a "Catholic organization" is one officially and logistically affiliated with the church; for the sake of the general reader, an organization of Catholics is a Catholic organization. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert