Talk:Ex-gay movement/Archive 1

message: After looking for other articles to add to the See also section (which I just added), I'm wondering if this article should be merged into Reparative therapy.  I'm not sure what this article covers, other than a list of a few ex-gay groups, that would not also belong in the Reparative article. Opinions? eaolson 03:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge?

message: I've removed a bunch of links from the links sections placed there by 68.161.130.126.  Many of these were placed with no explanatory text, some of them were just Christian shopping sites, five of them had the same names and no other information.  Wikipedia is not a link farm  The links section is already getting rather long.  I think we should make an effort to ensure it is highly-focused and contain only very relevant links. eaolson 03:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More reversions 

message: The following sentence was edited by 63.209.225.44.
: Herrschaft called a Human Rights Campaign colleague, Wayne Besen-- who currently tours the country attempting to expose ex-gays who might relapse--, and told him that Paulk was there.
I've removed the bolded section because, well, it doesn't make sense.  Is he exposing the fact that they're ex-gay or the fact that they might relapse?  And how does he know who might relaps and who won't?  Also, the punctuation was wrong. eaolson 01:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert 

message: I've reverted to a few edits back.  User:68.161.86.146 has been removing entire sections and replacing them with text taken verbatim from the various organizations' home pages, without any sort of formatting.  Really, if you're going to plagarize someone else's work, don't copy the copyright notice. eaolson 03:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright violations 

message: The list of 'ex gay groups' is remarkably biased.  It barely gives an account of anything other than scandles that led to their downfall.  I'm not certain if this section is even all together relevent, with more information, it could become useful to see the evolution of the 'ex gay group'.  As it is, i'm removing exposition of the scandles, and putting in only basic NPOV info about the groups.  Hopefully someone with more knowledge can expand them. If not, we might as well get rid of them, or abreiviate the section into a chronological list.  19:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  stumping ex gay groups 

message: I have added an article of John Paulk into Wikipedia - I have had the unfortunate luck of knowing John very well in 1983/4. user: stude62 user talk:stude62 01:20, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knowing John Paulk as I do... 

message: There were too many articles in :Category:LGBT, so I'm generally tidying up.  I created a new subcategory, :Category:Ex-gay movement, which is a direct child of :Category:LGBT, to put this and related articles in, so all the information on the topic is collected in one place.  I'm redoing the edit that put this article there; hopefully this is coherent enough of an explanation.  If not, please drop me a note. -- Beland 03:17, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category change 

message: I removed this section for three reasons:
#It appears to be a copyvio.
# It is a non-notable organisations. A google test on google groups returns only 435 hits for EI but 7,020 hits for NARTH and 2,350 hits for Exodus International .
# The editor who added it (User:Richman9) is actually the CEO of Evergreen International: Wikipedia is not a soapbox.
Axon 13:35, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted the addition of EI by BillRice on the basis that EI is a non-notable organisation as above. I would ask that people discuss further changes here first before modifying the article. I would also note that BillRice is a new user whose first edits are controversial and specific to this page, closely mirroring those of Richman9. It is for this reason I suspect that BillRice is a sockpuppet of Richman9 once again attempting to add references to his own organisations. Axon 17:09, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Evergreen International Section 

message: I think part of what is missing here is that some mention must be made of the distinction between seeing homosexuality as a group of behaviors and seeing it as a trait that is part of a person (wether inborn such as handedness or gained later such as having an lost a hand).  A full discussion isn't really appropriate, but some mention that these groups must be working from the idea of homosexuality as a group of behaviors should be mentioned.  (I don't happen to believe it is, but I do believe we need to present the idea.)  Dreamingkat 01:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Behavior vs Trait 

message: Someone removed all the links that had a skeptical opinion of ex-gay organizations. If no one objects I am going to revert them within a few days. --JamesB3 04:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed links 

message: First of all despite the attacks by a number editors this artical is very biased and dosn't conform to the NPOV rule.  As to a way to fix this problem I would suggest rewritting the artical from the beggining using the current artical as a guide.  Also the middle part of the artical needs to be mostly deleted as it has little to nothing to do with the topic.  John Paulk walked into a gay bar. why do I care? who is John Paulk? and ok this dude once went to a gay bar, this is actually rather off topic and unnessicary in the artical.  So I went to the wikipedia artical on John Paulk and find that he is famous only for going into a gay bar.  Also this kid who wrote a blog saying that they made him take a shower everyday, dosn't fit the need in this artical.  In fact the artical even says that Zack has told the world that the whole thing has been blown out of proportion, why is wikipedia only helping to inflame what is a nonstory.  I would like to see some consesus before I delete some of this --T-rex 06:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Needed Deletes

message: Wikipedia's articles should contain a healthy and balanced amount of critism about controversial subjects. Granted, homosexuality is a controversial subject. This is precisely where the exgay article falls woefully short. Its hue is manipulated to make exgay ministries look negative, perhaps even much more negative than it really is.  That is an unnecessary bias. If it is true that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then where are quotes, data and anecdotes about exgays and ministries which cast them in a favorable light? I only point this out because of the overt antagonism of the article.
The citing of major mental health organizations aligned against the exgay movement is not merit within itself to determine that the movement is "dangerous". There are "dangerous" people in every movement, even in the professions. Mental health organizations are subject and influenced by political biases, therefore making their assertions questionable. Unless detrators can offer corroborating evidence apart from the obvious disdain of the major mental health organizations, I would conclude that it is merely high priced conjecture and perspective.
The article definitely needs to be rewritten without excising the critics, but certainly to balance the information so that the reader's intelligence isn't insulted, but allowed to draw its on conclusions based on information presented. The article shouldnt resemble  a court case, but an information desk.
68.219.77.216 20:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Informational?