Talk:Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays

message: The statements below were added: 'Assuming someone who is not gay or bisexual, is heterosexual, PFLAG’s executive director Jody Huckaby said that "since this is the case PFOX should have no concerns. PFLAG supports safe schools for all sexual orientations - gay, bisexual and heterosexual."'  What position of PFLAG's is this a criticism of?  Has PFLAG neglected to support safe schools for all orientations or have they marked gays and bisexuals as less worthy somehow of safe schooling?  This point needs to be elaborated upon, or I'm going to have to delete it and rewrite the criticism section to make more sense. - CobaltBlueTony 22:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be explained that PFLAG works to ensure safe schools for all (which I think is there) whereas PFOX seems to be position ex-gays as needing further consideration of some sort, which frankly I find confusing as well. The best example I can think of is in the sex-education field educators when the teach about sexual attraction would also teach that some people are attracted to the same gender. PFOX, it seems, would want to ensure that language is also included that this isn't natural and that you can change. Benjiboi 11:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Wondering why this part of the quote is in this article: "PFLAG supports safe schools for all sexual orientations - gay, bisexual and heterosexual."  It seems that this part of the quote is taken out of context.  What position of PFOX does this pertain to?   Lionelt (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The last sentence appears to be WP:SOAP for PFLAG. It doesn't pertain to PFOX - it belongs in the PFLAG article. Lionelt (talk) 01:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Hi Lionelt. After your feedback at Talk:California Proposition 8 (2008) I thought I'd check out how you were finding things elsewhere on WP, and found you editing here, and having some of your edits reverted. I'm not going to address them all in detail, particularly as this isn't an article i've had anything to do with. But just saw the latest revert, which I would support. In implementing a neutral POV at wikipedia, one of the judgments editors are making all the time is ensuring consistency of a neutral point of view while not inappropriately marginalising particular points of view. Part of the NPOV policy says the goal is "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". Crucial to this is not giving undue weight to minority views and fringe theories, even if they have been published in (usually a small number or range of) a reliable source. Here's an extract from that policy: 
In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all...
In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is, in fact, the minority view.
It is respect for this policy that resulted in the latest revert, which the editor did at least briefly explain in the edit summary. Any time you want some feedback on a particular edit elsewhere on WP you can ask me on my talk page. People are supposed to be nice and explain things to newbies, but sometimes they don't even realise that that is what is needed, or that they have inadvertently been a little short with an editor - i've done it myself. Regards. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits of this article

message: There has been recent activity in the WP article regarding a court decision in 2009, following PFOX suing the Washington DC Office of Human Rights. This material has had (and still has) some issues, both around the accuracy of the text (whichi think I have fixed) and the reliability of the sources (an ongoing issue). Briefly, PFOX cannot be quoted as a reliable source in regards to what the court decision was. This is a general principle - you do not rely on one 'side' of a legal dispute to characterise a court decision in that dispute. The importance of that principle is highlighted by PFOX's significant misrepresentation of the outcome - namely, no clearly pointing out that they lost the case or why. Reporting of the case should be confined to reliable mainstram media, academic papers (there probably aren't any yet), or the court itself. The only reason I haven't deleted the 365gay and qeerty.com references is that i cannot access them at present, but I suspect they are not going to qualify as reliable, third party independent sources. If someone else can access them and believes that to be the case, please go ahead and remove them. The Advocate looks to me, in spite of its LGBT community orientation, to be reputable and its article read as accurate and neutral, quoting both PFOC and Truth Wins Out. If any more mainstream media reported the case (such as the WAshington Post) reported the case, that source should trump the current one. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. While it is not a good idea to quote sources considered unreliable or with a vested interest, PFOX's position is important to note as the article is ultimately about them and can serve to accurately reflect their position. Additionally, a more comprehensive and NPOV position can be forged by leaving it up over time rather than deleting it. This not only includes improving the wording but also the refinement of sources. Being inclusive and allowing editors and articles time with eventually resolve perceived biases or inaccuracies. With that in mind, I propose we leave all the sources on there at least until a more mainstream, NPOV reference can be found to replace them. BabyJonas (talk) 06:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the response. PFOX's objectives are set out elsewhere in the article. They don't need to be set out again in the section about the case. The original text did not in any case accurately reflect what the case was about (because PFOX didn't appear to want to accurately state the issue - by "accurately", I mean as the court understood it). I don't agree about the way to forge a more comprehensive NPOv position. Non-neutral stuff and unreliable sources (particularly when having a clear POV as well)should be removed. The place for the evolution to take place is by discussion on the talk page, rather than maintaining problematic material in the article mainspace. By all means bring those sources through to this area and discuss them, but I continue to have the view that they not be in the article at this point. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We should avoid taking sides on the issue, particularly when accusing a group of misrepresentation without any sources for the claim. Whether PFOX is misrepresenting the case or not depends on documentation from NEA, OHR or a mainstream news organization. I haven't been able to find anything on the NEO or OHR website. Maybe someone else will have better luck. Could you please move whatever you object to into the talk page so that we can have a look at it? BabyJonas (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Will try and come back to this later - briefly on the first point, though, I thought the court transcript that PFOX themselves put on their site did not square with PFOX's interpretation. Anyway, will try and get back to this later. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

text: There are several reasons this is wrong. First, you argue that these are "claims", but the word is used only once in the para. As it progresses they read more and more like "facts". Second, regardless of how often the word "claims" could be used, however, it is material that is essentially a number of specific facts that are set out in a manner that is highly critical of an organisation that disagrees with PFOX. One should use an organisation's own material only for "claims" about itself, not others; otherwise it is no better than a self published source and is unacceptable (see WP:RS. Third, given the nature of the subject, it is not appropriate that there is no material supporting the text from a reliable independent third party source. There is no material from the court. There is no counter-balancing material from the 'other side' of the debate. Fourth, the material probably violates policy in relation to biographies of living persons. I am very surprised you are continuing to argue this on the basis of the sources offered. I will revert once again. If you are not happy, then one of us will take this to WP:ANI. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  PFOX and recent court cae 

message: * PFOX maintains that homosexuality is a choice, not a product of biological determination.
I removed "a choice" because (1) it was not mentioned anywhere else in the article and (2) everything I've read about homosexuals (who want to change) transitioning to heterosexuality denies the idea that homosexuality is a choice. Richard A. Cohen repeatedly affirms that "No one chooses to become homosexual". I lost count of how many times Rachel Maddow tried to put the words into his mouth but then to credit allowed Cohen to set her straight (no pun intended) about that. 
Yet I feel that the two sides are talking past each other. We need a Homosexuality and choice article to clarify this point. While it is generally agreed that no one chooses to have same-sex desires, the ex-gay (or SOCE) side says that "choice" is an element in leaving the homosexual lifestyle and/or getting rid of same-sex desires. 
Is that the same as saying that "homosexuality is a choice", or what? 
The Religious Tolerance website, which his been consistently pro-gay, attempts to clarify this this:
:Many Christians ... believe that homosexuality is ultimately a choice that young people make 
And "homosexuality" in that context is "defined as a same-sex sexual activity." 
But we all know that Homosexuality is more than just behavior. Possibly more important is desire - not to mention identity. --Uncle Ed (talk) 06:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Homosexuality and choice

message: That should be within quotation marks or it should be noted it is a claim because it directly contradicts scientific consensus. --~Knowzilla  (Talk) 06:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What consensus of notable scientific bodies has issued an opinion specifically regarding Greg Quinlan's sexuality? – Lionel (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I obviously mean about sexual orientation in general. You're not being helpful by dodging the issue like this and constantly popping in only to revert any changes made to improve the article to ensure that it conforms with WP:NPOV. --~Knowzilla  (Talk) 06:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a WP:BLP article and content and sourcing requirements are stringent. We need  sources that are specifically about the subject. Btw BLP supercedes NPOV. – Lionel (talk) 04:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A source from PFOX itself is not reliable and is obviously biased - any changes made to reflect scientific consensus does not violate BLP, indeed it is probably the current wording, which seems to give validity to a discredited fringe view, is what is in violation of BLP. --~Knowzilla  (Talk) 07:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You're correct that normally we would not use PFOX as a source. However self-published sources are reliable about themselves per WP:SPS. Note that this article is not about a fringe view, which I presume is conversion therapy. Also this is not a medical article. To include content about conversion therapy would violate WP:COATRACK and probably WP:OFFTOPIC. – Lionel (talk) 08:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:ABOUTSELF, the wording as it is cannot stand because it does not pass criteria number 4 ("4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity"). --~Knowzilla  (Talk) 09:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "Authenticity" in the sense that the source is in fact who they claim to be. I.e. not an imposter. There is no dispute that the source cited, www.pfox.org, is under the control of the organization PFOX.  – Lionel (talk) 09:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And under 1 ("1. the material is not unduly self-serving")? It is clearly self-serving PFOX. And again, it is blatantly incorrect. --~Knowzilla  (Talk) 10:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If I may, here is the premise you're using: (A) the APA says conversion therapy doesn't work (B) Quinlan claims to be ex-gay (C) therefore Quinlan is a liar. Here is the problem: this is against policy per WP:SYNTH. The only way to arrive at C is for the APA to say that Quinlan is a liar. Without C you can't cite ABOUTSELF#1. Btw I hate to break it to you, but wikipedia doesn't care about correctness. – Lionel (talk) 11:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, it's not just the APA, it's every major scientific institution in the world (although the APA's conclusion alone is enough). Secondly, we can look at this from another perspective if your going to bring up WP:VNT: We cannot verify his claim. Finally, VNT is an essay, and not Wikipedia policy. If we're going to have an absurd claim like that on an article, it needs to be made clear to readers that it is a claim. --~Knowzilla  (Talk) 11:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: One does not need to assume that Quinlan is a liar; one can merely not assume that he is telling the truth. WP:SPS tells us that we should not accept such sources on things that are unduly self-serving, and in the case of PFOX, it certainly serves their goals to have someone be considered ex-gay. If we were to be covering a breatharian sect (to pick a more extreme illustration), it would serve their needs for them to say that their leader hasn't eaten in seven years; it doesn't mean we need represent that as fact. That is not to say that we need represent it as a lie, either (which would be both a WP:NPOV and a WP:BLP violation); we can represent it as a claim (in which case, quoting to indicate accurate sourcing is appropriate) or we can skip addressing it altogether. In this case, we could say Quinlan is a former gay activist, for example. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a suggestion with which I agree. I can agree that representing what Quinlan/PFOX is saying as lie may not be appropriate (even though the statement is in contradiction with scientific conclusions). Using quotation marks, the wording you have suggested or a similar wording, or alternatively not addressing it altogether, are all appropriate solutions in my view. --~Knowzilla  (Talk) 12:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "former homosexual" 

message: The lead contained the following statement: "PFOX maintains that homosexuality is not a product of biological determination, in contradiction to the consensus of major mental health organizations." I have removed the "in contradiction to the consensus of major mental health organizations" part. It did not seem to have a source, it is also in fact untrue. There is no general consensus among mental health organizations about the precise reasons why people develop a particular sexual orientation. The American Psychological Association states that, "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation." (See here: http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx. It's a multi-page document, and that part is on page 4). That's a far, far different statement from what appeared in the lead. Hebradaeum (talk) 05:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:FRINGE, it is necessary to contextualize these fringe scientific views in some way. Part of the problem is that it's also just a weird way to convey PFOX's position. It would be better to say that they believe homosexuality is a choice and advocate attempts to change LGB people to heterosexual, which are unsupported/condemned by the scientific and medical community. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand what you are trying to do with the lead, and I think you're right in principle. But the text you added, "PFOX maintains, in contradiction to the consensus of major mental health organizations, that homosexuality is a choice and that sexual orientation should be changed", makes me a little uneasy. I looked up their website, and it seems to be true that they maintain, roughly speaking, that homosexuality is a choice - but they don't use those exact words, and they might object to having their views characterized that way. Anyway, the information you added needs to be properly cited. Hebradaeum (talk) 02:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

text: What they say specifically is, "Sexual orientation is a matter of self-affirmation and public declaration. “Gay” is a self-chosen identity", which is almost but not quite the same as saying that homosexuality is a choice. See http://pfox.org/about_us.html. Hebradaeum (talk) 02:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead issues 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070930203539/http://www.washblade.com/2004/5-28/news/national/pfox.cfm to http://www.washblade.com/2004/5-28/news/national/pfox.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified