Jump to content

Talk:Exodus International/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

FotF Section added by whom?

I added 2 "citation needed" .[citation needed] to the Focus on the Family text that was added by an unknown person. Please do sign your work. And thank you for the contribution. Caryn LeMur (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Added to Michael Bussee incident section

Given that Exodus International's own article calls Gary Cooper a 'co-founder', I changed the title and added the supporting text with citations. I noted that Dr. Throckmorton disagrees with the designation of Cooper as 'founder'. Caryn LeMur (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Added to section concerning Michael Bussee's "apology" as occurred in June 2007, as reported by Channel 7 News (American news channel). Caryn LeMur (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Added Stubs For Future Input

After a review of the comments below (in "A Statistical Study...."); and after review of other corporate pages, I thought it was best to stub out this Exodus Article. This does show subject areas that I believe are appropriate to Exodus and that lean towards a NPV. It also shows a lack of verifiable information and invites others to participate (who may have that information). Caryn LeMur (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutral language for scandal section

Definition of scandal: "A scandal is a widely publicized incident involving allegations of wrong-doing, disgrace, or moral outrage." In observing the discussions on Exgaywatch.com, the persons within the 'scandal' do not view their actions as scandals, but in some cases as the proper action to perform. Bussee later apologized not for the "scandal" but for his involvement in Exodus. Therefore, neutral language is more appropriate. --Caryn LeMur (talk) 03:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Previous section intro text asserted the cause of homosexuality – the assertion is not germane to a “scandal” (now changed to “incident”). Previous text used an alcoholism analogy as an introduction to the “scandal” section. This was not, in my opinion, a neutral analogy. To call the “scandals” a “set-back” or “relapse” is also not a neutral POV. I therefore removed the intro text. Caryn LeMur (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Concerning section on John Paulk. Removed non-neutral language: “affair”, “most…damaging”, “enjoyed”. Changed “publicity” to “public figures”. Multiple requests for citations inserted. Caryn LeMur (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Inserted low-res copy of Newsweek Magazine cover, using fair use law and justification that the cover is a strong contributer to the assertion that Paulk was a public figure and therefore, the incident is all the more notable within a historical context. Caryn LeMur (talk) 06:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Added citation for John Paulk's importance from Archives, Washington Post (USA newspaper); added same citation for Paulk's self-description as former "homosexual prostitute and drag queen", as well as same citation for his position within Focus on the Family, Inc. Caryn LeMur (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Added citations for John Paulk's section, which caused several minor edits in language. Deleted last phrase concerning Paulk's current work as a chef (since this appears to not be pertinent to the subject of the incident). Provided new last phrase for resignation from Focus on the Family. Caryn LeMur (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Added three citations showing affect of the August 1998 Newsweek cover and the resulting controversy. Caryn LeMur (talk) 02:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Added quote of John Paulk from the Charlotte World interview. This, I believe, allows a more even-handed approach to the incident, yet retains a good amount of Neutral Point of View. Caryn LeMur (talk) 03:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Edits by 87.25.152.219 on 26 April 2006

As much as I dislike Exodus and sharply disagree with their ethos, the edits made by User:87.25.152.219 today were not helpful. Anyone who has points to bring against Exodus can do it by presenting evidence; merely inserting inflammatory rhetoric isn't appropriate. User:David L Rattigan 19:59 26 April 2006 GMT

This is an ad for the group. Needs a complete rewrite. Rhobite 01:33, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

I would just like to share...

This is a frightening organization.

You have no idea - That they had John Paulk as their national spokeman and chair of their Board speaks volumes for the integrity of the organization. Stude62 13:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok...

Well I guess if you consider Christianity frightening. (Unsigned Revision as of 08:36, 20 December 2005 by [[User:Eenu)

A very insightful article...

I found a very good article on this issue...

"I'm Gay--OK?"

--JJ

Parody Billboard/ACLU Case

I think someone should add this [1] interesting story to the article... anyone willing to take up the charge? A basic summary is that this guy made a parody image of a billboard Exodus put up in Florida, Exodus sent him a C&D letter, and the ACLU sent them a (very interesting IMHO) letter back.

EI had to send the c&d letter in order to show that they are protecting their image, even if the c&d letter didn't have a leg to stand on. Still, I applaud the young man who decided not to take their flack. If he were here, I'd pat him on the back. Stude62 03:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of their motives, I think this is worthy to be added to the article. Anyone care to? aubrey 05:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It might also be noteworthy that several blogs posted the image in support of Justin Watt and that others created different parodies. I would do it myself but my blog was one of the ones who did it so I do not want to have the appearance of bias or that I am just trying to whore my blog. My original entry can be found here and some of the parodies (with links to their sources) can be found here if someone feels that this would be a good addition and wants to do this. --TheAngryFag 19:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

POV check

I've added the POV check tag to this page because a lot of it reads heavily biased, especially since it was added by the founder of the organization. A rewrite is in order.Ari 01:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

This article has recently undergone major and significantly POV editing. It reads more like an advertising brochure and a biography of Alan Chambers than an encyclopedia article. I would suggest the article be reverted to a previous edit, and any valuable changes incorporated into that. eaolson 01:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Although I don't know enough on the topic to know what to keep. Ari 02:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
None of it. The article that was up here before the edits by Chambers was, while not a PR piece for Exodus, accurate and well documented with verifiable sources in the various print formats (ie, their content had been verified as accurate, and to date not challenged in court). As a matter of fact, I'm reverting the content back to what it was Chambers turned it into a PR. Stude62 02:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Good idea. Ha, maybe I should pay more attention, if I had actually looked at the original I wouldn't have marked it POV check at all but Spam. Ok... need a drink.  :) Ari 02:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I've left user Alan Chambers a note on his talk page as well. Stude62 13:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
What an unethical person Chambers is to edit the piece in this way... good job reverting, guys!--Larrybob 16:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Since its Easter Weekend, I'm assuming Good Will toward Mr. Chambers and am assuming that he hasn't read the rules about self promotion and NPOV edits. Stude62 23:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The current POV tag is not "Petty" the entire point of NPOV is to keep a neutral point of view, and that is imediately put into question when an organization edits its own wikipedia page, since one would assume a group wouldn't believe or want to say anything bad about itself. The POV tag should stay until a number of editors not affiliated with the group have gone over the text to make sure it is as NPOV and accurate as possible. I would recommend reading wikipedia's NPOV policies.Ari 23:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Additions/Corrections

  1. This page is severely biased against Exodus. I would like to add some factual info that isn't slanted towards scandals, but rather Exodus' long and excellent track record.
  2. Exodus is mispelled in the links where you reference Randy Thomas' blog.
  3. Randy Thomas is not the Communications Director he is the Membership Director.
  4. Alan Chambers is not the Executive Director he is the President.
  5. Not sure why you have selected to highlight a small and insignificant portion of Bob Davies testimony on "hugging", but that smacks of linking Exodus to Holding Therapy--a practice that Exodus specifically prohibits.
  6. I am new to Wikipedia and was unaware of all of the rules and regulations.
  7. Some of the web links that were added last week really deserve to remain. They are:
    • The National Association for the Research & Therapy of Homosexuality: www.narth.com
    • Love Won Out: www.lovewonout.com
    • Exodus Global Alliance: www.exodusglobalalliance.org
  8. Reading through this discussion, it is apparent that there is great need for some extra writers and editers on this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.55.2.89 (talk • contribs) 71.55.2.89.
Welcome to Wikipedia, then. You may want to register a username. You may also wish to do a little reading before beginning to edit. In response to your concerns, be bold in editing. If you find an innaccuracy, please fix it. If you believe the page violates WP's NPOV policy, feel free to change it. Be aware that there was a significant and rather POV edit to this page that was reverted. Don't forget to fill out the edit summary.
Specifically in reference to your concerns:
1. I am not aware of any reliable information on how effective Exodus's program is.
7. Wikipedia is not a collection of links. This page should not become buried in links to other ex-gay groups. The link to Exodus Global Alliance may be appropriate if it's actually affiliated with Exodus. eaolson 01:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
With respect to the damage that you did to this art (IP71.55.2.89), first and foremost you are always welcome to add verifiable content, that is to say information that we can verify. While you may not like that we have included unfavorable items to Exodus, these items have been verified and are part of the public record. Secondly, you may not blank articles because you disagree with them. Thirdly, if you are going to add statistics relative to Exodus programs, please supply the independent third party that has verified these results. Stude62 01:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a collection of links. This page should not become buried in links to other ex-gay groups." If it is not appropriate to insert links to related topics and organizations which are similar to or friendly with Exodus, it certainly isn't appropriate to place links to the websites of Wayne Bessen and Justin Watt. MikeEnsley 19:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is since the Wayne Bessen link is to a figure mentioned in this article and that Justin Watt was threatened by Exodus.--TheAngryFag 18:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Why was the ability to edit the definition of Exodus removed? I ask because the definition isn't accurate. WHomever edited it says that "Exodus International is the "largest Christian referral and information ministry" in the ex-gay movement, according to its web site."

Actually our website states: "Exodus is the largest Christian referral and information ministry dealing with homosexual issues in our world today."

That change needs to be made imediately and the ability to edit restored. 71.55.2.89 21:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Alan M Chambers

Mr. Chambers, you reveal yourself. Wikiepdia is about facts, not just the ones that suit our vision of how things should be. I can only speak to the edits regarding John Paulk, your former Chair. The inclusion of Mr. Paulk's behaviors is relevent to Exodus, both in it choice of leadership and in it handling of the situation. Stude62 22:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by the "ability to edit the definition", but I don't see any such problem now. If there had been recent vandalism, the page might have been semi-protected, which prevents anonymous editors from making changes. (I'm not sure if that would show up in the edit history or not.) Signing in with a user name will get around the protection. eaolson 23:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at the Revision as of 23:04, April 18, 2006, by user 71.55.2.89 who amended the reason for the template because "I edited the warning because of the pettiness of the disclaimer" and did so by adding the following words (in italics):
":POV-because|Recent edits done by people involved in Exodus, the topic organization--who know the organization well enough to do the edits."
In doing so, the implication was that edits made from people outside the organization are biased, whereas the added content in dispute was accurate. However the template was placed because edits made erased verifiable content and instead replaced that information with PR-like writings. Stude62 20:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Recent new editor

This seems a bit self-evident, but user 71.55.2.89 and Alan M Chambers appear to be one and the same. I'm basing this on this edit. It also seems fairly self-evident that the wiki editor Alan M Chambers is also the Exodus President Alan Chambers, but I have asked the user on his user page to make this clear. I'm not saying I think there's anything wrong with Mr. Chambers editing here, but such edits may necessarily come with a POV bias (for the same reason autobiographies are discouraged), and may call for extra scrutiny. eaolson 23:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Giving his motives the benefit of the doubt, he should still be cautious about what he presents given his position creates the appearance of potential bias if not actual bias. --TheAngryFag 19:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

LOL I'm sure "TheAngryFag" has no POV bias.

Not unless you can demonstrate that he does. A preference of colorful screen names does not mean that the editor cannot set aside his biases when editing. --Chancemichaels 20:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

Page title

Should the page be moved from "Exodus (organization)" to "Exodus International"? Fireplace 14:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

With no objections after one month, moving. Fireplace 15:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Whoops, redirects already. Need an admin. Fireplace 15:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This page is being hit by vandals

This page has an undue amount of biased info. The vandals pink penguin and fireplace keep adding the biased and questionalble info back after it has been corrected. Then they accuse anyone of correcting the info as vandalism. How do we take care of this issue? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shyhiloguy31 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The article has been stable for some time. It's not appropriate to delete critical information en mass. When every single one of your recent edits has been reverted by one of four different editors, you might want to stop and take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Fireplace 23:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested Move

It was requested that this article be renamed but the procedure outlined at WP:RM#How to request a page move did not appear to be followed, and consensus could not be determined. Please request a move again with proper procedure if there is still a desire for the page to be moved. Thank you for your time! -- tariqabjotu 01:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

To moving admin: Tariqabjotu is referring to the suggested discussion template for the talk page. But see Talk:Exodus (organization)#Page title. There were no objections, and this is a procedural request because a redirect already exists. As the article makes clear, the name of the organization is Exodus International. Thanks. Fireplace 01:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Section

The section "Exodus today" appears self-serving:

Although Exodus does not provide any verifiable statistics on its success rate, its website does feature a number of testimonials, including one by former Executive Director Bob Davies.

Davies says he has found comfort in non-sexual friendships with heterosexual men, especially from the Church. "All my life I had felt so inferior to other men. But through same-sex affirmation, I slowly began to feel more like 'one of the guys.' Another root which fed my homosexual desires was being cut."

Davies also describes how he met and married a woman from his church. He says he's not deterred by the "many more battles" ahead because of Jesus. "Through His death for me, the war has already been won."

The first paragraph is encyclopedic. The second and third are a commercial. I suggest removing them, leaving the important and verifiable information, unless we are going to include the personal beliefs of the group's opponents as well. --Chancemichaels 20:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

Intro paragraph

Jdfellows, your proposed changes to the opening paragraph work for me- I'm glad you removed the scare quotes from 'reparative therapy,' as they weren't terribly neutral. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

this article has questionable biases

Once Again the Ugly Face of Intolerance...

As an ex-gay myself I find it extremely insulting the way this article assumes that the changing from homosexuality is forced and from external sources. Choosing not to be gay is a no win situation. We're demonised by the church and dehumanised by the gay community (that revolting steriotype, Melanie, in Oranges are not the only Fruit sums up the general attitude). It's an extremely difficult thing to do, people do fail and slip up and an organisation to support you when you need it is very valuable.

I find it interesting that you use the word "scary." I'm not homophobic- I don't feel threatened by you but nee-homo-phobia is a rife problem. You need to look at your own attitudes and develop some tolerance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.201.140.121 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Los Angeles Apologies 28jun2007

"3 former leaders of ex-gay ministry apologize: They cite psychological harm they caused gays as the ministry, Exodus International, meets in Irvine." By Rebecca Trounson, Los Angeles Times, June 28, 2007. - Rorybowman 14:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Were the former leaders part of Exodus?--Knulclunk 15:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed "Medical view" section

For two reasons. One, this isn't an article on conversion, it's an article on one organization. And two, it was basically an ad for a book, full of POV and other such nonsense.

Archive 1

NPOV not a noble goal on this page

Exodus International spews a large amount of utter nonsense. To take an NPOV, oh we are just presenting what the say, we aren't saying if it's right or wrong approach is to give equal support FOR their cause as against it. I could form an organization claiming left-handed people are horrible, and the NPOV rule would cause Wikipedia to give a forum to that ridiculous claim. EI should be silenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.63.84.69 (talk) 05:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

And I think you're full of crap. Come on, what kind of argument is that? Joshuajohanson (talk) 07:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Avoiding the personal attack, it is perfectly appropriate to speak here about the harm which EI causes (properly sourced, of course). Tb (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I was opposed to the phrase "EI should be silenced" and changing the wording of the article to state EI is a crony. [2] Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Harm vs. Support

I believe that Exodus International harms those it targets; it believes it supports them. It is POV whether it is actually supporting them. The article should be neutral on the point, and it is not ok for the article to claim it supports them. A neutral term should be used. I suggested "claims to support", or "targets", I will not accept "supports". I'm not willing to see the article make the claim, in its first sentence, that Exodus is a helpful organization, when there are plenty of people who are very concerned that it is harmful. NPOV means not taking sides in that conflict, which means we can say that Exodus claims to help people, but not that it actually does. Tb (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The facts can speak for themselves and the article goes into detail about people who have been both harmed and helped by the organization. EI supporters and controversies are covered in the article fairly. --Knulclunk (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I have no big beef with the article body--it is the first sentence which is making the POV claim that Exodus helps its targeted population. Surely there is a way to phrase this sentence to avoid taking sides in the controversy. The current wording says that it helps its target audience, and that's a highly controversial claim. Tb (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
It does not say that it helps them. It says it "supports" them in a decision that is theirs to make, whether some feel that is a wise decision or not.--Knulclunk (talk) 01:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Can you explain how it is POV to say what I would prefer, that it targets them? Or aims at, or intends its efforts toward, or some other more neutral term? Note that it does not say it supports a decision; it says rather that it supports them. I believe that Exodus harms people who are "looking for freedom from homosexuality", and that opinion is hardly unusual. The article should remain NPOV, expressing neither the opinion that it helps (or supports), or the view that it harms. There is clearly a phrasing which would do that. Why do you object to it? Tb (talk) 04:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
If both the individuals and Exodus want the same thing, something that both consider positive, why insist that there is something more sinister? Is there a proportional greater evidence of Exodus seeking out to recruit or indoctrinate people against their will? Or are you implying that organizations like Queer Nation and GLAAD are "good", while Exodus is "bad"? Are you implying that sexual activity can't be controlled? or shouldn't be curbed? Or is it that Exodus does not fit positively into your world view; WP:BIAS? --Knulclunk (talk) 10:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
So, basically, you're saying that it doesn't matter how controversial it is, the article can go ahead and say that Exodus helps people in its lead, and it doesn't matter whether that's a controversial claim, because you think it's true? Tb (talk) 15:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The article can say that Exodus "supports" people in its lead. We should define Exodus by its intention, yes. Its controversy is secondary to its mission, but its mission is unambiguous here. Let the facts speak for themselves. For a reader who feels that the Exodus mission is rubbish or dangerous, the current language does not preclude that. For a reader who feels the the Exodus mission is worthy or noble, the lead of this article is not the place for that battle either. This article is not an essay about the morality of Exodus. We aren't saying that Exodus "helps" people, we are saying Exodus is intended to support them in reducing, suppressing or controlling their unwanted homosexual desires. That is OBVIOUSLY controversial, do we need to say it is BAD? --Knulclunk (talk) 03:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the article shouldn't say it's bad--but I would be happy to say "intends to support." Tb (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with User:Fireplace's latest version of the lead. Works for me. But I would say that there is an implication in the edit log (and some editors here) which is harmful. It's the idea that we just present a controversial organization's or person's activities in their own terms. That's not NPOV--it's an adoption of the POV of the subject. We would not allow a lead for Barack Obama or John McCain that described the candidate as "the strongest candidate for President" or "the best choice for America", even though most certainly both men would want to identify themselves that way. User:Fireplace's edit avoids this by saying what they promote, in their words in quotes, rather than asserting it directly. (We would be fine with "John McCain says he's the strongest candidate," similarly.) Tb (talk) 17:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Fireplace for your edit. It is a nice solution.--Knulclunk (talk) 02:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

A Statistical Study Of Exodus Participants – Jones and Yarhouse

I had the good fortune of corresponding with one of the authors of the study (Mark Yarhouse) concerning the authors decision to pursue publishing without an apparent high level of peer-review by the wider psychological community. In an attempt to maintain NPV, I have supplied text in brackets that shows some of Mr. Yarhouse's rationale for not pursuing the highest level of scrutiny. I think now that the work is all the more notable, given the current environment. Caryn LeMur (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Began to build the section concerning "Ex-Gays?" by Jones and Yarhouse. Included the background environment of disagreement; the major criticisms pro and con; and the conclusion to Jones and Yarhouse's defense of their book on Exgaywatch.com. Included several citations; included notes where my own citations are lacking. I will seek to rectify over the next several days. Caryn LeMur (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this is too much coverage, per WP:V and WP:NPOV. The standard for inclusion of scholarship is that "the material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals." (WP:RS). This study has not been published in a peer reviewed source or reviewed and judged acceptable by academic journals. Because of its association with Exodus, I do think it's appropriate to mention it briefly (a sentence or two), but, per WP:RS, not to dwell on its conclusions or arguments for or against them that have appeared in blogs. Fireplace (talk) 02:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


First, thank you for your discussion. I did check on WP:V and found this, which seems to contradict your viewpoint:
"All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them.
"In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is."
Thus, I offer that I can tighten up the text by removing some of the "blog" information. But the book was notable for its examination of Exodus participants within the "given" background of the APA and Exodus statements; the book was 'published by a respected publishing house'; and I felt obligated to 'fairly represent all majority and significant minority viewpoints'. Also, the last concluding remark is highly significant, since it shows a bridge forming between the ministry-based Exodus view and the professional psychology-based view. A sentence or two will not easily 'fairly represent' the multiple viewpoints, in my opinion. Caryn LeMur (talk) 04:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Right, "In general" books published by respected publishing houses are reliable sources. But, when it comes to scientific research, the standard is stricter: "The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals." (WP:RS) That criterion hasn't been met here. Because this book is particularly relevant to Exodus (they were involved with its creation), I do think it should be included, but it should be included in the context of "Exodus points to this non-peer reviewed study of its members for support", not in the context of "Here is a study and here is what it concluded." Fireplace (talk) 05:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I added a 'Note, not peer-reviewed' statement to the very first line of the Jones/Yarhouse text. I also deleted the concluding defense of the work by Jones/Yarhouse (since a 'defense' is more in keeping with peer-reviewed scientific literature). Caryn LeMur (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I tightened the text on Jones and Yarhouse and provided the missing citations. Caryn LeMur (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it is important to note to other reviewers/contributors that this is an article on an organization, to include its products. In that sense, the organization is Exodus International and the "products" are homosexuals that have experienced "change". The Jones & Yarhouse study is showing an outsiders 'audit' of the 'products'. If this were Ford Motor Company, perhaps we should separate the article into two views: (1) Organization and (2) Products (given the abundance of entries for both views). However, the Exodus organization and its products are not nearly as abundant. I highly recommend that we continue to keep this as a single article. Caryn LeMur (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If Fireplace's objection to the prominence of survey is WP:RS, maybe we should include some other studies on Exodus participants that were peer-reviewed, such as Throckmorton's Initial empirical and clinical findings concerning the change process for ex-gays[3], and Efforts to Modify Sexual Orientation: A Review of Outcome Literature and Ethical Issues[4], or even Nicolosi's Retrospective self-reports of changes in homosexual orientation: A consumer survey of conversion therapy clients. [5]. There are plenty of peer-reviewed papers that document a change in homosexual orientation among Exodus members. We can modify the section to be Professional Studies and just have the Jones and Yarhouse results be one of many professional surveys, hopefully satisfying Fireplace's undue weight objection and Caryn's bridge between the ministry-based Exodus view and the professional psychology-based view.
I'm not exactly sure what Caryn means by wanting to keep Exodus' "products" on this page. First of all, I think most ex-gays would site a variety of sources that helped them change their orientation, such as conversion therapy, ecclesiastical help, support from loved ones, and most important, God. I don't think Exodus should claim all of the credit. However, we already have a section on "defects" (to continue the products analogy), so it only makes sense to have a section on successes. Defects and successes seem to be scattered on the conversion therapy page, ex-gay page, and the ex-gay category, with IMHO a disproportionate representation of the negative side. I would feel better if the people would have their own pages (if they are significant to warrant such) and only have a brief summary on each of the related pages. I think the John Paulk "incident" takes up way too much space and should be summarized and remain on the John Paulk page. On the other hand, Joe Dallas, Mike Haley, Sy Rogers etc. aren't even mentioned.Joshuajohanson (talk) 03:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I greatly enjoy the idea of "Professional Studies That Examined Exodus Participants" or similar as a new section title. And yes, I hope Jones & Yarhouse are just one of several studies that should be included, using neutral POV. I did review the Throckmorton reference you supplied (not the others). I think an abstract of Throckmorton's work would be excellent, especially highlighting what pertains to Exodus participants. Do you concur with title change? Do you wish to supply abstract/short summary of Throckmorton's work? Shall we post the studies in reverse chronological order?
Yeah, I'll work on that. Let's get what information we can find in there, and then worry about the heading/order.
I did go ahead and add some headers (this is discussed in a new thread). Caryn LeMur (talk) 19:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I do see a difference emerging on the Internet concerning 'vanity blogs' and 'professional interchange blogs'. Dr. Chapman posted professional concerns on Exgaywatch.com and therefore, I believed his post was a verifiable professional reference. Additionally, Jones & Yarhouse crafted a defense of their work, and posted that very defense also on Exgaywatch.com. Those that post comments after Dr. Chapman and Jones/Yarhouse may be considered less of a verifiable reference(since those posts, to include my own, then approach being a 'vanity blog'). No insult intended to any party. But I do think we are seeing 'blogs' move into the professional interchange category, and therefore I do think that Wikipedia should include this type of emerging forum in its Reliable Sources pages.
I think agree, but whatever discussion we have should be on the WP:Reliable Sources page, since this phenomenon is obviously much greater than just Exodus.
Very good point about the negative "incidents". I would love a section concerning the pluses of the Exodus leaders. In a sense, the "incidents" show the negative side of the leaders; if anyone can supply the plus side of the leadership story, I'd love to see it included. The up-side of the leadership story would greatly balance this article. I have attempted to locate third-party and/or verifiable information on Joe Dallas during his tenure as Exodus Chairman, but simply failed. I've attempted to find information on the positives that Paulk obtained for Exodus, and again, my searches via the Internet have simply produce very little. Help would be most appreciated. Perhaps the section should be re-cast as two sections: "Leadership Successes" and "Leadership Incidents". Then, we may be forced to move the current "incident" on the "billboard parody" to a new subcategory... perhaps "Notable Incidents" or similar. Your thoughts?
There is a summary on the conversion therapy page, one on the [[ex-gay] page, as well as individual pages such as Alan Chambers, Andrew Comiskey, and others in Category:Ex-gay_people. I am also trying to collect information on my sandbox page: User:Joshuajohanson/Homosexuality. They aren't all Exodus people, but fall under the broader group of ex-gay. Feel free to contribute, but know that it is my sandbox, and I reserve the right to do revert any of your changes.
You are correct that I added to the Paulk section a number of references, to include Paulk's own statement. I think that such statements, while lengthening an article, are critical in understanding the human factor in an organization. Organizational factors may include group culture, group language, group discipline, leadership, changing economics, business goals/evolution, and so forth. Organizations can create cultures; cultures create their own language; cultures and language define in-groups, out-groups, acceptability, accountability; organizations operate within a socio-economic background; goals evolve. I first expanded Paulk's article in the interest of neutrality, and then to capture the essential points that created balance of differing views. Allow me to re-engineer some of that section, and see if I can create greater conciseness or at least a more clear posting.
I am fine with what you added, and I think most of it should be on the John Paulk page. After all, he is just one member of Exodus.
Good points. I moved most of the material to John Paulk's article. I am curious if the Newsweek cover controversy belongs on Exodus International, John Paulk, and/or Ex-gay? It may belong on more than one article. Caryn LeMur (talk) 19:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I'm searching for the proper analogy for what to include about an "organization", hence the term "product". I don't mean to offend anyone. "Exodus Products" is the best I could think of at the time. I first agree that many other agencies create the same "product". I don't think I've implied that Exodus should "claim all the credit"; however, if my language failed on the article page and implied that Exodus is the only manufacturer of the 'product', please do correct my language. By the way, Merry (almost) Christmas, thank you much for posting your thoughts and for help you can provide. Caryn LeMur (talk) 05:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Let's get away from the product analogy and just call it People associated with the Exodus movement. We need not even break it down into positives or negatives, because I don't think it is our job to do that. What I meant by saying Exodus shouldn't claim all the credit is that I think most of the information on the people should be on their own page and only a short summary on this page. And a merry Christmas to you too.Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree with the short summary concept, and reduced the Paulk input accordingly. Caryn LeMur (talk) 19:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


The current Wikipedia article talks about people going from 100% gay to 100% straight. In a presentation about this book (Dr. Gene Chase) there seems to be nothing further from the truth. Chase said that they used six or seven different scales on which to measure homosexuality, instead of lumping it all into one scale or homosexual to straight. The multiple scales is much more analytical and scientific IMO than the single scale. Furthermore, Chase pointed out that no or nearly no homosexual sees uniform progress (movement) along every single of these scales, and when there is progress they are hardly ever absolute from most to least or from least to most.

I won't edit this part of the article without the book in front of me, but maybe someone who has the book can look into this. Shrommer (talk) 14:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Better lede

Hi all,

Would anyone care to suggest a better lede than:

Exodus International is a nonprofit, interdenominational Christian organization that promotes "the message of Freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ."?

We all know the lede should be NPOV and describe the organisation in simple, neutral language. The word 'freedom' in particular is a bit strong and insinuates that all those identifying as LGBT are in some way trapped. I certainly don't think the lede should include a quotation from the group's own website. For example, the Human Rights Campaign is described as a lobby group rather than an organisation promoting "the message of Freedom from heterosexual oppression and homophobia through the power of Joe Solomonese" or even "a campaign for gay rights".

The quotation "the message of Freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ" might be better used later in the article to describe what EI claim or have as a motto/mission statement, etc.

Perhaps something like "Exodus International is a nonprofit, interdenominational Christian organization that offers information and religious ministry to individuals who no longer wish to identify as homosexual"...? A bit clumsy, but ye get the drift.

Cheers, Conor (talk) 23:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to change the lede. It's fine. The quotation is simply letting Exodus describe themselves in their own words, which is the correct way to handle things. Skoojal (talk) 05:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

jones and yarhouse results?

The article introduces research by jones and yarhouse, but does not say what the results are/ were. Can anyone add more detail?WotherspoonSmith (talk) 12:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Found it, included it WotherspoonSmith (talk) 13:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Section 4.1, second sentence.

re: "Michael and Gary had to then leave their heterosexual relationships until Gary's death when AIDS complications caught up with him (and considering AIDS symptoms are usually asymptomatic, it is believed that Gary had the HIV virus during or before the inception of Exodus)"

Okay, as someone who is just passing through, I wanted to offer some feedback about the above statement. My hope is one of you kind and devoted Wikifolk will hear my four requests and use them to improve the article in a single sentence.

1. The intro. They had to leave? Was it forced? Probably not, but the wording is clumsy, over-dramatic, leading, confusing, and yet, anti-climatic. It's reasonable for us readers to just assume they left at will as many people do when they begin a new relationship without first ending another one.

2. AIDS complications do not 'catch up' with people, but are indicative of advanced stages of HIV infection. In other words, people don't catch AIDS, but HIV, the virus that causes it. The wording is critical to convey a necessary level of accuracy for readers. Furthermore, the current wording implies punishment, and contributes to an ongoing problem with ignorance and judgement when it's a medical condition (see: [1] for more info).

3. AIDS is not usually asymptomatic because it is a late, advanced stage of HIV-infection. The Centers for Disease Control and National Institute of Health identifies AIDS occurring with fewer than 200 CD4+ T cells per microliter, or when an opportunistic infection results. When either one occurs, one is no longer asymptomatic, but symptomatic. (see: [2] for referencing).

4. Speculation about how long Cooper had HIV isn't topical, but sounds personal. There's an obvious disconnect to reasonably accept the statement as true had Cooper had HIV prior to EI's inception in 1976 as the article states since the CDC hadn't reported their first HIV/AIDS case until June 1982. Surely, supporting documentation will be lacking. I'd like to see that part of the statement removed since it offers no value or information other than what some unnamed source thought about Cooper's medical condition.

With respect to Wikipedia, I hope I've managed to follow the appropriate format used for making suggestions.

Thank you for your time. Regards. MLR 98.210.191.131 (talk) 04:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

thanks for pointing this out. It has been edited accordingly. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 12:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Founders?

The lede lists five people as 'founders' of the organisation. I haven't found anything to support these people being singled out. The link to EI President Alan Chambers' piece at http://exodus.to/content/view/671/207/ (one of the few to acknowledge both Cooper and Bussee as founders) suggests a bunch of others, and not all of our 5. Does anyone have a source or clarification on who the founders were?
Other articles seems to be saying that such a list would be difficult to specify, as the original conferences were pulled together from a variety of existing ministries. If we have a source, we should leave it, if not, we should remove it. It's not like the founders names are essential to the description, after all. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 12:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Loss of Tax Exempt Status

Do we want to mention that New Zealand has taken away Exodus' tax exempt status in their country? The 15 page decision is here: http://www.charities.govt.nz/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=n67zG23d3EE%3d&tabid=250 Codenamemary (talk) 20:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with including this, especially given the strong reliance on APA and AMA positions in the ruling (possible relevance for other countries?).
Proposed text: When considering the generally accepted scientific view of homosexuality (including that of the APA and AMA), in combination with the legality of (and prohibition of discrimination against) homosexuality, they were "not able to determine whether [Exodus Ministries Trust Board] will, or will not, provide a benefit to the public that will outweigh any harm caused by [their] purposes." --Timnz2000 (talk) 02:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Using Distorted Research

Exodus is accused of distorting a scientist's research for their anti-gay iphone app by the creator of the same research. http://www.truthwinsout.org/pressreleases/2011/03/15385/

Jenova20 16:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Press releases from biased orgs have skeptical reliability.Lionel (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Any source could be considered biased, in this case you would have difficulty proving a bias as Change.org is allowing a petition and a counter petition, no bias there.
Thus any other site mentioning either will have a bias as to which they mention.
Jenova20 08:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Source 36 / Change.org counter petition

I don't believe a better source is required for the counter petition on change.org as the original source is not controversial and is the most reliable place to read about the counter petition and see the amount of signatures thus far. Any other source will be checking back to that page so there's no point not using the original in this case. Also if you read, you can see that signature number 10 was a Mr Osama Bin Laden, Afghanistan. Perhaps we should let the Americans know? Jenova20 10:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The original source is primary. Policy is clear. I don't know what else to say. Um... You aren't serious about Bin Laden's signature, are you? Lionel (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Controversy isn't the issue. Reliability is. The actual petition itself is a primary source. We require reportage from a secondary source such as NY Times or Wash Post. Looking at the petition and counting the signatures is original research.Lionel (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I didn't think the two signatures could make a difference but i can see why they could be troubling there as two joke names of 16 could make that whole side look like a joke.
Jenova20 08:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
There's a better source now.
Jenova20 15:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The section is beginning to grow out of proportion, in wikipseak that's WP:UNDUE. For an org that's been around for 40 years, with such international influence, it's hard to justify the size of this section, which also suffers from WP:RECENTISM.Lionel (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I feel the section is the right size to give equal weight to each viewpoint.
"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint."
I'm not logged in at the moment 81.137.240.118 (talk) 10:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

BLP violation

Alan Chambers did not say anything about "Love Won Out". For WP to say otherwise is misquoting him. Misquoting and misattributing statements to a living person is a violation of BLP. I do not have to source BLP content: per BLPSOURCES I am in fact required to remove unsourced content about a living person. In any event this bit about Chambers and converson therapy already appears in the article in the appropriate section.– Lionel (talk) 20:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't say anything about the Love Won Out bit - i removed that. Besides, that's the minor issue here Lionelt, your actions are what are in dispute. You appear to prefer removal and censorship over a slight reword or tagging in need of citation and that is not only picky but also an abuse of the BLP policy and clear bias you show towards this and the Homosexuals Anonymous article where you fight tooth and nail to remove anything you don't like, even when appropriately cited. ツ Jenova20 (email) 22:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
My opinion is that you are both POV pushing and it would be better to have a neutral third party work over this article. The text in the news sources is both more coherent and more accurate than this article. That's easy for me to say though - I can't spend the time on it to fix it right now. Hugetim (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Part of this edit [6] is copied verbatim from a copyrighted source and constitutes plagiarism. This violates WP:COPYVIO. – Lionel (talk) 02:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it should have been reworded as it is far to close to the source.IRWolfie- (talk) 09:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I reworded the text. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Current position on same-sex sexual activity

An edit was recently reverted without explanation. The edit added a statement that this group still (in the context of other dramatic changes in direction recently) opposes same-sex sexual acts. I have restored a statement to this effect in the History section because it is true and well-supported by the source. In the referenced article, this fact is made very clear, most directly in the statement that "the group holds that any sexual activity outside a heterosexual marriage is sinful," which clearly includes (and, here, primarily refers to) same-sex sexual acts in the context of the paragraph. But Chambers' opposition to same-sex sexual acts is evidenced elsewhere in the article as well (mostly taken for granted, in fact). For instance, "Chambers said the ministry's emphasis should be simply helping Christians who want to reconcile their own particular religious beliefs with sexual feelings they consider an affront to scripture. For some that might mean celibacy; for others, like Chambers, it meant finding an understanding opposite-sex partner." It is thus quite clear that Chambers does not approve of same-sex sexual relationships - otherwise, it would obviously be mentioned here. (It is obviously beside the point, but I personally do not view same-sex sexual relationships as sinful although, - full disclosure - the teaching authorities of my Church do hold this view. My interest here is in the accuracy of Wikipedia. I only say this because my Catholicism may be understandably be viewed as a conflict of interest.)

I think you can make a case for not including the disputed statement in the history section because it is redundant and unnecessary to restate in that part of the article, but not because it is unsupported by the source. Hugetim (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I've changed it to his quote instead. He never mentioned sexual activity for gays, just for heterosexuals and if you point it out your way, i could point it out my way. Since we don't agree then i've put the quote in rather than reword what he actually said as you and Lionelt did. Thanks Jenova20 09:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I understand the wording is very sensitive here. I'll leave it as is, but I just want to register my concern that overuse of quotations makes such passages harder to read unnecessarily. I'm not sure that someone not well-versed in this topic would be able to make much sense out of the quotation you inserted without more of its context (which context Ryan Vesey explained here). The quotations essay somewhat supports your approach, but I respectfully differ. Hugetim (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
IT makes perfect sense. The wording is sensitive because the meaning talks about sexual activity before heterosexual marriage and so rewording it to reflect 1/3 of the meaning (as someone else put it) is highly inappropriate, inflammable and POV-pushing.
So no i don't agree with your point of someone not understanding it since having someone understanding a reworded POV would be worse than them reading what was actually said.
Thanks Jenova20 08:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
It's just that nothing in the rest of the source is about people who are not persistently attracted to the same sex. That context is what leads me to disagree with your conclusion that that one phrase is primarily speaking about the organization's concern with extra-marital heterosexual sexual activity. I'm going to try to let this go now, so I just want to clarify here that my not responding further should not be interpreted as anything else. Hugetim (talk) 19:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I'd say Hugetim's original wording was true, though just quoting the original avoids an unnecessary interpretation step and it doesn't affect readability for me at all. Some content was lost in the rewording, but that's always the case when summarizing, so the "1/3" argument doesn't really work. Nonetheless, the interpretation step might be some form of original research, so avoiding the whole issue by just using the (IMO) harmless quote is fine. 70.176.109.207 (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Without sounding in bad faith you have no idea what you're talking about. The addition was looked over by an administrator among others and it was misrepresented. If a source says dogs are evil, you can't claim cats are good from that source, it's misrepresentation and we only say what the sources do. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 08:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

John Paulk exposed as fraud...Again! (December 2012)

http://www.truthwinsout.org/news/2012/12/32488/ Surprise, surprise. --76.105.145.143 (talk) 09:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

In the news

Article should probably discuss the role of some of its leaders in inspiring the Uganda gay death-penalty bill... AnonMoos (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The article seems to be traveling at a reasonable pace but I do not know if veracity is an issue. It would be great if we could have copyeditors such as Jmh649 (talk) review the article; although, I know he is incredibly busy all of the time.--Soulparadox (talk) 18:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Just typically stick to medicine. And am a horrible copyeditor :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits

I'm concerned about recent edits to this article. For example

...but many of the member ministries which comprised Exodus dispute this claim and say they were never consulted or advised. Many of them withdrew from Exodus International (the US organization) and formed two new Ex-Gay ministry networks. The two largest of these post-Exodus networks are the Restored Hope Network and Hope for Wholeness.[3] [4][5][6]

References

  1. ^ http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4947a2.htm
  2. ^ http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/topics/HIVAIDS/Understanding/whatAreHIVAIDS.htm
  3. ^ http://hopeforwholeness.org/
  4. ^ http://www.citizenlink.com/2013/07/05/friday-5-anne-paulk/
  5. ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYtSewtOrpo
  6. ^ http://www.firststone.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=348:concerning-our-transition-from-exodus-international-to-restored-hope-network&catid=142:current-news&Itemid=604

These sources are not reliable.

I invite RpNJ to discuss these edits here.- MrX 00:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


Thank you MrX. Since most of these changes relate specifically to the statements and actions of the individuals within the organization, I originally felt that it was best to provide direct links to the articles and posts written by those individuals who were mentioned. The question of whether these are "fringe" seems odd since this is based on the assumption that topic itself is "fringe." Perhaps it is, but this article has existed for several years. The segments that were added regarding the organization's closure were missing the actions of the rest of the organization in the aftermath of the decision made by the Board of Directors.

All of these edits are well documented by a variety of independent News sources(including these below):

[1] [2] Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). [3] [4]

The edits I made were far more documented than the rest of the existing article. user: RpNJ 02:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC) 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RpNJ (talk • contribs) 02:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I think it would be best to stick to the content in reliable secondary sources (Huffington Post, Christianity Today) and avoid closely connected sites, blogs and videos. You also have to be careful about presenting content accurately and neutrally. For example, you made this change

Exodus International was a non-profit, interdenominational ex-gay Christian organization that sought to help people who wished to limit their homosexual desires. It was founded in 1976, but ceased activities in June 2013, issuing a statement which repudiated its aims and apologized for the harm their pursuit has caused to LGBT people.

Exodus International was the US based extension of Exodus Global Alliance, a non-profit, interdenominational ex-gay Christian organization that seeks to help people who wish experience Same-Sex Attraction, but choose to pursue chaste lives and/or to limit their homosexual desires in order to live according to their moral beliefs.

That is a very non-neutral presentation.

Similarly, this

The leaders of Former Exodus-affiliated member ministries, including the original founder of Exodus International, Frank Worthen, immediately issued a rebuttal to Alan Chambers apology.[5][6][7]

While some falsely proclaim that a transformed life is optional for Christians, the united witness of Jesus and the writers of Scripture are clear: In God’s grace true saving faith results in a life of holiness and sexual purity. Thankfully God does not leave his people without a witness to the transforming power of Jesus Christ.[8]

Other member ministries released their own statements reflecting disagreement with Alan Chambers' decision and the decision of the three person Board of Directors for the US "Exodus International" umbrella organization. Overall, the closure of the US umbrella organization "Exodus International" had little to no effect on the day to day work of the Exodus member ministries. Most of them continue to operate and many have joined one or both of the new ministry networks established by Exodus member ministries.[9][10]

References

  1. ^ Lila Shapiro, "Ex-Gay Christian Groups Will Continue After Exodus As Religious LGBT Support Grows", The Huffington Post, 6/23/2013, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/21/ex-gay-christian-exodus-lgbt_n_3475024.html
  2. ^ Paulk, Anne (2003). Restoring Sexual Identity: Hope for Women Who Struggle with Same-Sex Attraction Harvest House Publishers ISBN 978-0736911795
  3. ^ http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/june-web-only/exodus-international-alan-chambers-apologize-for-exgay-past.html
  4. ^ http://ex-gaytruth.com/ex-gay-news/pfox-statement-on-the-demise-of-exodus-international/
  5. ^ http://www.citizenlink.com/2013/07/05/friday-5-anne-paulk/
  6. ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYtSewtOrpo
  7. ^ http://www.firststone.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=348:concerning-our-transition-from-exodus-international-to-restored-hope-network&catid=142:current-news&Itemid=604
  8. ^ http://restoredhopenetwork.com/images/files/press/RHN%20Press%20release%206.20.13.pdf
  9. ^ http://www.livehope.net
  10. ^ http://hopeforwholeness.org/

is mostly sourced to closely connected sources. It is also WP:UNDUE, especially with the quote, which strikes me as WP:SOAPBOXing.- MrX 03:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you X, I will follow your advice and also review the guidelines before making any edits going forward. I definitely do not want to add bias or any non neutral information to any article.

RpNJ 14:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Further reading

I just wanted to explain my removal of recent additions to the "Further reading" section. Per WP:FURTHER, this section is for readings on the subject of the article. The additions, at least at first glance, appeared to be about SOCE in general, rather than about Exodus in particular. That these were books supposedly carries by Exodus's bookstore does not make them relevant (oy, how long the Further Reading section of the Waldenbooks article would be!) I checked one of the books listed, and it only mentioned Exodus on a single page (plus in the index, linking to that page); additionally, the book in question had a 2014 publication date, making even the claim of a listing at the Exodus bookstore problematic. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Exodus International. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Exodus International. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Exodus International. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Exodus International. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:30, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Exodus International. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Exodus International. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Exodus_International/Archive_1&oldid=1136280010"