Talk:George Rekers/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

removed from family research council website?

It is stated "Following these reports the Family Research Council removed the details about Rekers' role as a founder board member from their web site" however, I just checked the website (FRC) and Rekers is still there mentioned in the FAQ) (go to "about FRC" and then to "FAQ") as he was prior. Also the source given for this statement seems untrustworthy, as it is not a primary source, but is quoting other newspapers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.177.77.203 (talk) 12:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It was removed from the introduction. The problem was that using the diff of the primary sources would have been WP:OR, so this was replaced by a secondary source recording this. Secondary sources are always preferable to primary sources here. Mish (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Q who founded the Family research center? answer copied from the link "Armand Nicholi Jr. of Harvard University and George Rekers of the University of South Carolina medical school." Appears to clearly dispute this comment that is presently in the article Following these reports the Family Research Council removed the details about Rekers' role as a founder board member from their web site; Off2riorob (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I read (who knows where now) that Rekers had already been "purged" and relegated to the FAQ even prior to all these revelations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.177.77.203 (talk) 12:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Mish. I suspect the negative evaluation of blogs qua blogs will soon have to be revisited. It's 2010, not 2001. That said, I may have mentioned once or twice here (or perhaps not? :-))) that we really would have been better advised to let the dust settle before tackling this whole matter. BoxTurtle is reporting that FRC had, in fact, cleaned up their site sometime before this all came to pass. Now, I could be difficult and say, seeing as how BoxTurtle is not only "just" a blog, but a (gasp!) "gay" blog at that, we should not trust their word over the "respectable" established media.

It is, thank goodness, established fact that this monster was a co-founder and thus can not be eradicated by the christianists. What is important to me is accuracy. Now, his university seems to be having some trouble getting their statements on this matter accurate with some "officials" saying he was scratched years ago and others commenting that maybe, perhaps, somebody "unauthorized" accidentaly, no harm-intended, etc. et al, ad nauseum, removed him.

A-Yup. Sure. Right.

So, for the millionth time, not that it will do the least bit of good, why on earth do we continue to work on an article when the information upon which we are supposedly basing our work is shifting hour by hour? Wouldn't it just be better to agree to a basic "known facts" biography for the moment, wait a few weeks and then come back and fight this out? I would be perfectly willing to accept a stub which just lists the bare minimum of known facts up to 3 May 2010 and leave it be. I am feeling very very, extremely, unhappy with the editors who have done their very best to present this in a pro-Christian light here, pretending to be NPOV all the time. It does not make for a productive article (which is sort of the whole idea) nor does it bode well for when I do start working on the text. Again, making myself very very clear here because I am well aware of the time-honored ploy: But nobody registered any complaints back when it was done, so let's just leave it be. U-huh. Registering serious complaints right now that the article in not NPOV, not accurate and will need serious re-writing to be NPOV once the dust settles.Panthera germanicus (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest removeing the false comment, he is still mentioned as a founder on the website, if anyone wants to keep it, I would suggest adding a comment that states what is still on the website about him personally I would remove the false statement and keep this ..Off2riorob (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Following these reports the Family Research Council posted a release denying any association with Rekers for over a decade, stating that "while it's extremely disappointing when any Christian leader engages in the very activities that they "preach" against, it's not surprising. The Scriptures clearly teach the fallen nature of all people."Off2riorob (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose. You spent quite a few electrons lecturing me this week on how "blogs" and "free-newspapers" (and, by concantination, especially "gay-blogs" are not valid newssources.

Cough up a real newssource á la one that you considered valid when you were lecturing me on what is and is not acceptable to wikipedia and then I shall be willing to consider it. Until then, you are basing your intention to remove on nothing but "alternative" sources. Unacceptable.Panthera germanicus (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Please be civil or I will report you, I tire of your repeated rudeness and I have already requested this of you. This is not a vote, the simple fact is that the claim is incorrect, rekers is still mentioned on the FRC website, so we should not have an incorrect claim in the article at the very least we should add the rebuke that although this citation claimed that details about rekers founding the movement had been removed, details of his involvement in the founding could be found in the FAQ on the site and then the link. Off2riorob (talk) 13:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, Off2riorob, let's see if I understand you correctly. You are asserting that the claim is not correct on the basis that the people making the claim say so? Is that right? Humor me, please, and provide the sources upon which you base your decision prior to making the change. Thank you.Panthera germanicus (talk) 13:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

You are quite right, this is not a vote. However, while I have consistently asked you to forbear making changes on a matter which is shifting hourly, have made no edits, no postings, you have consistently argued not only with me, but with several others here - many of them active, experienced editors about every single point which portrayed Dr. Rekers in another light than the one he desires. Report me? For what? Not changing your posts, rather talking to you about them on the discussion page? Look, you and I are approaching this from different perspectives. That won't change. But threatening me is not going to help you with all the other editors who don't agree with you here. Yes, I am documenting my disagreements with you now because, when things settle down and a responsible article can be made, I am not going to have you through up "but you accepted it when it was originally written" at me.Panthera germanicus (talk) 14:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Just be polite to me and stop asserting all sorts of personal things and you will be fine. I have explained at the top and more and provided the citation , I will not edit the article but as it is it says details of his founding bla bla where removed fron the website, this is clearly wrong as those details are still right now on the website, keep it if you like but it is not a correct comment. Or you could add the this place said that details about rekers had been removed from the website but those details could still be found on the website. Off2riorob (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, I apologize for being rude to you. Clearly, we disagree on the most fundamental issues relevant to this article. I am not going to request for the second time a full-protect. Until things settle down, it is both unprofessional as well as wasted energy working on this article.Panthera germanicus (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Yikes. How did that "not" get in there! I meant I am (and I have) requested a full-protection until the dust settles.Panthera germanicus (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I appreciate your comment and hope we can forget the past and move on in a colloquial manner. I don't think anyone will fully protect the article, I don't see any need, but lets see. Personally as I have said I will not edit this article again, I am only popping by now and then to see how it is going and I saw the comment from the IP in this thread and had a look at his link and I agree with him, and there you go, I agree in this case with the IP, thats all. Off2riorob (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's do hope we can work together later then because I shall be making considerable changes to the current text - even if I liked it, through the continual updates, it just is no longer quite what it should be. I do think we need to stop these constant changes, especially now that Dr. Rekers and his oh-so-Christian friends have hired lawyers. Best to let the dust settle. It just doesn't seem professional to me to have everyone putting in, taking out, updating and revising constantly.Panthera germanicus (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding his university entry. It was there on the 5th, and I know this because I looked it up. Why did I look it up? Because he was described as being a 'Distinguished Professor', which is an unusual title, and I wanted to make sure that was how he was listed there, and not that it was somebody's POV that he was a 'distinguished' Professor. Of course, I cannot verify this, as it did not occur to me to make a record it, and had I done so it would have been WP:OR; fortunately somebody else has done this for us. It appears that everything that Rekers has ever said or done and every organisation that has ever mentioned him, has been archived somewhere, and people have been busy making records since the day the news broke, so I don't think we have to worry about doing this ourselves - it has all been recorded for posterity somewhere or other, and in time will be available in sources that can be cited. Much of his work is a matter of public record already - court and state submissions on behalf of a range of organisations are not going to be eliminated. Mish (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The discussionis about this

We presently have this in our article, it appears at this time to be uncited and there are details about Rekers and the founding on the Family website still. Where are we citing this comment from? Off2riorob (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Following these reports the Family Research Council removed the details about Rekers' role as a founder board member from their web site Off2riorob (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah this is it, from this link.. http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/05/04/Antigay_Christian_Leader_Rekers_Vacations_With_Rent_Boy has this comment..By Tuesday evening, Family Research Council had removed Rekers' name from its website. which as the link the IP has provided is clearly wrong. Off2riorob (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

This is clearly still available of the FAQ of the Family website ::Q who founded the Family research center? answer The founding board included Dr. Dobson and two noted psychiatrists, Armand Nicholi Jr. of Harvard University and George Rekers of the University of South Carolina medical school. Off2riorob (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding his university entry. It was there on the 5th, and I know this because I looked it up. Why did I look it up? Because he was described as being a 'Distinguished Professor', which is an unusual title, and I wanted to make sure that was how he was listed there, and not that it was somebody's POV that he was a 'distinguished' Professor. Of course, I cannot verify this, as it did not occur to me to make a record it, and had I done so it would have been WP:OR; fortunately somebody else has done this for us. It appears that everything that Rekers has ever said or done and every organisation that has ever mentioned him, has been archived somewhere, and people have been busy making records since the day the news broke, so I don't think we have to worry about doing this ourselves - it has all been recorded for posterity somewhere or other, and in time will be available in sources that can be cited. Much of his work is a matter of public record already - court and state submissions on behalf of a range of organisations are not going to be eliminated. Mish (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the FRC entry, I did make the point at the time it was inserted that all we know is that it was there on their "History" page in June 2007, and it was not there after the 5th May 2010. Whether it is now on their FAQ or on their disclaimer denying any association with him for over ten years is immaterial, we can show that the statement is correct - his name was removed, and the diff was presented way back in the discussion that proves this (no need to cite things that have already been cited - go find it). However, cannot show when it was removed during the nearly three years that intervened. The problem with the diffs is that they are based on primary sources in a way that makes this WP:OR, and thereby unusable by our own guidelines - which is why I removed it. Then I realised that somebody had found a secondary source for this claim, which stated the change was made more recently, so I let it pass. Now somebody has suggested a different source that questions this. In this situation, where we are essentially reporting on something that is disputed, then we are working on speculation it would seem, so it is better to leave it out. If this information was removed from one page and not another is, or later inserted elsewhere in another way, is a red herring - people cleansing a web site may well miss some references, but that does not mean they haven't tried to cleanse it. What my question is, however, is what does FRC's cleansing of Rekers have to do with Rekers' bibliography? It seems to say more about FRC than Rekers himself, and their subsequent commentary about Rekers' predicament seems more significant about their attitude towards him than their internal sanitation. Mish (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth. Anyway, perhaps they removed it and then later put it back. Or perhaps they removed it from one location and left it in another (in which case it is true that they removed it). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• This is a correct edit... The Miami New Times claimed that after they broke the story Rekers' role as a founder board member had been removed from the Family Research Council web site,[1] although details about Reker's contribution to the founding of the FRC were still available on the website.[2] Off2riorob (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

No, they removed it, because now it is not there - the FAQ is a red-herring.

• June 2007: [3]
• Today: [4]

Why the reference buried in a FAQ is now being introduced into the discussion I have no idea.Mish (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The FAQ is not a red herring it is a FAQ. That link is from 2007 , you would expect the website to completely change in three years, do you have the links to the day before it was removed? or the week before? Is 2007 the closest date in the archives? There is nothing in the archives since 2007 [5] Off2riorob (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The FAQ could have been written yesterday, for all we know. It did not exist in 2007, as far as I can determine. In 2007, Rekers was listed in the history as a founding board member, today he is not. So, at some point, his name was removed from the history - we cannot show it was removed in the past few days, but clearly his name was removed from the history at some point for some reason (and nothing else seems to have been removed). That is all we have. Mish (talk) 17:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The whole of the about section has been altered not juct rekers name, its completely changed, at some unknown point between today and 2007. Off2riorob (talk)

It was changed at some point after June 2008 - because there is no recorded change for the orginal format of page after June 2007, whereas changes to the site are recorded up to June 2008 (but that page was unchanged); there is no recorded change to the current format of the page.

Current version:

• The seeds for FRC's growth were planted in a time of turmoil and watered with work and prayer. After attending a research planning meeting for President Carter's 1980 White House Conference on Families, Dr. James Dobson met and prayed with a group of eight Christian leaders at a Washington hotel. From that beginning resolve was formed to establish Family Research Council, and one of those present that night, Gerald P. Regier, became our first president. FRC's immediate goal was to counter the credentialed voices arrayed against life and family with equally capable men and women of faith.

Previous version:

• The idea of the Family Research Council originated at the 1980 White House Conference on Families. Among the conferees, James Dobson stood out because of his rare combination of Christian social values and academic and professional credentials. A practicing clinical psychologist and noted author, Dobson had recently transitioned into radio broadcasting and also launched a nonprofit, family service organization. He felt that the time was ripe to establish an organization that would drive the national debate on family issues. In 1983, the Family Research Council incorporated as a nonprofit educational institution in the District of Columbia; its founding board included Dobson and two noted psychiatrists, Armand Nicholoi Jr. of Harvard University and George Rekers of the University of South Carolina.

I agree, I was mistaken, it was not only the reference to Rekers that was lost; the re-write is substantial, and both Nicholosi and Rekers seem to have been expunged. Like I said, unless we know more, this ought to have been left out until we had all the information available in a verifiable source. Mish (talk) 17:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for having a good look at that Mitch, I also noticed that Nicholosi had been also moved from the 2007 issue and I thought, well he hasn't done anything. Thanks 23:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

My gut feeling is that this erasure represents something other than removing Rekers from the history, but people associated with NARTH (presumably to avoid the impression these organisations were started by the same small group of anti-gay agitators). Mish (talk) 08:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite and expansion

I've been vaguely unhappy about this article since I came across it on the BLP noticeboard a couple of days ago. I've addressed what I felt was a lack of reliable context about the rest of Rekers' career - which appears to span a significant period of time - by adding a substantial amount of additional content and reorganising the rest of the article. I'd be interested to know what people think of these changes. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, I see that the rentboy "Lucien" has gone public under his real name. This pretty much voids the previous concern that he didn't want his real name to be publicised. I propose to add it to the article. Does anyone object? -- ChrisO (talk) 02:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I am concerned that this article was lodged on the BLP noticeboard without notifying editors here that this was the case. This needs explanation. Mish (talk) 08:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, nice work ChrisO. As for notifying editors here -- I know that is the usual expectation, but I think it often leads only to reiteration there by the people involved "here", when the real function is to get some new involvement. (I'm not the one who started the thread there, btw.) Final point: since Rekers is an academic, another possibility for developing this page is to discuss his scholarly work. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

A bit rude though. Sure, we need to limit such a review of his work to publication in quality mainstream peer-reviewed sources. Not in jourmals set up by and for organisations he is involved with, primarily intended to disseminate the 'scholarly' views of a group of political agitators and therapists. We would also need to cover critiques of his work by legitimate academics and therapists. Mish (talk) 09:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

@ChrisO (talk) 02:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC): He was first not under his real name. But Miami News Times made a bad job and wrote to much about his profile on rentboys. But theay do also tosay hide his face and take the name Lucien. Lucien was first angry for carried out in the open through bloggers under his real name. a.) Not good for business. b.) His family had known that he is gay, but not that je is an escort. And first he would not speak. When he hear through a friend who Rekers was and what his work was, he agreed to talk. Whithout money. --Franz (Fg68at) de:Talk 10:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The lede

Is it really correct to put that the rent-boy thinks he is homosexual in the lede? I don't. It seems a bit like undue weight to the rent-boys personal opinion about rekers possible sexual preferences. Bang out of order in the lede if you want my opinion. Off2riorob (talk) 10:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, I would say it goes to the heart of the current controversy. The reason why it's even an issue in the first place is the contrast between Rekers' public and private actions, so I don't think we can avoid mentioning this. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

So you assert that the rent-boys opinion about the subjects possible sexual preference belongs in the lede? Off2riorob (talk) 11:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I've reworded the line. See what you think of it now. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Its awful, basically a POV opinionated attack using assertions and claims. I know you have a lot of experience as to editing BLP articles, please don't lets your personal opinions about this get in the way of BLP policy and general guidelines. Off2riorob (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It's better now. Off2riorob (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

This also is a false assertion in the lede.. " While Rekers acknowledged hiring the prostitute," Rekers has not admitted hiring any prostitute at all. Rekers admitted to hiring a baggage handler. Off2riorob (talk) 11:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Its not "false". Clearly Rekers knew the guy was a prostitute though he hired him as a "baggage handler."--Milowent (talk) 11:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Clearly? It is a false assertion, Rekers actually denies getting the rent-boys phone number on the rentboy dot com website and denies even knowing about that aspect of the young mans life until half way through the holiday, (according to his statements) So it is clearly a falsehood to assert in the lede that Rekers acknowledged hiring a prostitute. Off2riorob (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Rekers has not, as far as I know, said anything about how he hired the prostitute. As for the wording, please read it carefully. It doesn't say "Rekers acknowledged hiring a prostitute" - it says he acknowledged hiring the prostitute, i.e. this particular individual. Rekers has never denied that he hired the man. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes but the assertion is there, if the reality is that it is this individual then that should be what is in the content. In Rekers statement he said he got recommendations and through interviews, he has strongly denied knowing about the rentboy dot com site and also denied strongly knowing about the mans work as a prostitute or rentboy. At the most you could say, Rekers acknowledged hiring the man but denied knowing he was a prostitute' Off2riorob (talk) 11:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, so no feathers are ruffled, just put in my two Eurocents, for what their worth over at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#George_Alan_Rekers

Frankly, this last discussion of whether Dr. Rekers did or did not get Geo through the Rentboy site is precisely why we need to let the dust settle here. Off2riorob, you are going to have one mighty uphill battle on that one because at least one statement by Dr. Rekers to Joe Jarvis says he did...and Jarvis has the journalistic chops to withstand the "it's only a gay blog so it doesn't count charge".

Would those editing like mad here indulge me for a moment and just explain why they aren't willing to just let it go for a week or so? Look at the mess the article is in! And that, at a time when we ought to be offering a decent biographical article.

Sheesh.Panthera germanicus (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hang on a moment, I've put in quite a lot of effort in expanding the article so that it isn't all about the rentboy scandal. Surely that counts for something? -- ChrisO (talk) 12:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a decent NPOV write...In May 2010, the Miami New Times reported that Rekers had hired a man who was a male prostitute to travel with him on a ten-day trip to Europe. While Rekers acknowledged hiring the man, he denied knowing he was a prostitute and asserted that he had hired him merely because he needed "an assistant to lift his luggage." The man said that Rekers had contacted him via a homosexual prostitution website....any objections to this edit?Off2riorob (talk) 12:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Chris0, you've written beautifully. Even though I disagree with his purpose, I find Off2riobob also has written well. I mean no offence! My basic question was not well worded.

Given the enormous volatility of the subject, the constantly changing information, the expanding range of valid sources, wouldn't it make more sense to just sit tight for a week or so?

Off2riorob, I do NOT find that NPOV, whatsover. First, that is not what he said in other interviews, so why should we put in something we know to be untrue simply because it's verifiable in a source you like? If you want to put that in, then I strongly feel you need to put in the statements to the contrary he originally made. That is based on his, what, fourth attempt to bend the facts? The fifth? It isn't NPOV when we are aiding the guy in his agenda, it's bias.

I'm willing to see material here which does not paint the gay community in the best light (aka: rentboy or, for that matter, Dr. Rekers), you have to play fair. NOPV does not mean you only get to put in what you like and then say it is just and mote.Panthera germanicus (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Throwing in a proposed rewrite based on a single source, away from other sources, and asking 'any objections?' won't cut it - you need to ask the question, 'does anybody agree?' Then, when there is little response, you can safely assume people don't; I say safely because that is safer than assuming agreement in the absence of dissagreement.

I agree that the NPOV approach would be that Rekers was first reported as admitting he had employed the young man via Rentboy.com, but in later reports claimed he had not, and that he did not know that he offered his services as a male prostitute; whereas, the young man he employed says he was employed via the site, and that employement included a contract which specified certain services to be delivered on a daily basis. Then there could be some detail about how the young man explained that the contracted services included massages that involved touching of the genitals and posterior. Mish (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

So you don't like it, oh well. I would like to see the citation that supports what we have in the lede now that Rekers acknowledged hiring the prostitute Off2riorob (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It is up there, at the beginning, if you go back. First report. Surprised you missed it. Mish (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Please link for me? Off2riorob (talk) 15:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, of course, it is that old chestnut again. He is on record as not denying it, which is not the same as his admitting it. So, the NPOV approach would be that Rekers was first reported as not denying he had employed the young man via Rentboy.com, but in later reports denied that he had, and that he did not know that his companion offered his services as a male prostitute; whereas, the young man he employed says he was employed via Rentboy.com, and that employement included a contract which specified certain services to be delivered on a daily basis. Then there could be some detail about how the young man explained that the contracted services included massages that involved genital touching. Mish (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Old chestnut? Red herring? ... What is happening here is this falsehood, I meet a man (jonny) and become friends with him and get him to tidy my garden, he is a drug smuggler and a homosexual but I have no idea that he is a drug smuggler or a homosexual, he is just my friend, and then he is arrested and I am the mayor of a town and the press say to me, do you know Jonny? and I say sure he is my friend and I hired him to tidy my garden...and the wikipedia editors write... the mayor Off2riorob acknowledged hiring the homosexual drug dealer and said he was his friend but claimed that he had only hired him to tidy his garden. Off2riorob (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Mish, it isn't quite right to say that at first he (merely) didn't deny using rentboy.com. Instead, he admitted using rentboy.com (sourced to at least four separate reports, as discussed above). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

That claim is a complete falsehood, please present citations to support your claim here. Off2riorob (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I won't bother, since you ignored them when I presented them to you the last time we went through this. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hint, you are looking for a citation that quotes Rekers as saying, "I used rentboy dot com." and the same that quotes Rekers as saying "I acknowledge I hired a prostitute". Off2riorob (talk) 15:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I thought I had read that, but the earliest report I could find here says he wouldn't deny it. My memory is that the earliest said he admitted it. I do recall we went through this before, and they were dismissed on that basis that the same individual who is being disruptive now insisted they were falsehoods then. But the only reason we had for believing they were false was Rekers' subsequent denial. In the light of what has emerged since, perhaps we should be more cautious accepting Rekers' word as arbrating what is true and false in this encyclopedia, and rely on sources?

I don't understand the analogy - who is claiming that Lucien is a drug dealer? Nobody is accusing Rekers of being a drug dealer. Oh, I see, it is a very poor analogy. Tell me, if a narc was found to have taken a drug dealer on holiday with him for a couple of weeks, and this was discovered - and said 'despite being closely involved in enforcing laws against drugs, I didn't realise this person I took on holiday with me was in fact a junkie and drug dealer'... you'd be a bit concrened that he was either naive, inept, or corrupt - wouldn't you? However, no point discussing this, as it is irrelevant. Whatever Rekers's situation is, it is the sources that count - not whether he actually knew, or is a liar, or corrupt. Mish (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Dearie me, what an excellent idea -- yes, let's rely on the sources, particularly the impeccably reliable ones. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

So if you dont undersand analogies, you want to add this...Rekers, who is a anti homosexual activist went to the homosexual prostitution website, rent-boy dot com and hired himself a gay prostitute and took him on holiday to italy for naked anal massages, the rentboy said Rekers was clearly a homosexual, together on holiday in italy they enjoyed many naked massages. Rekers admitted he rented the prostitute on the homosexual prostitution website and claimed he had done nothing wrong. After the news broke other male prostitutes said they had been hired for naked anal massages in hotels with Rekers.Off2riorob (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. I note that in Section 4.1 somebody has stripped out the essential information that the "American College of Pediatricians" is not a genuine organization of Board Certified Pediatricians, but a sham group of fakes, run by christianists. The quite good reference should be put back in.

I daresay this statement from the director of the NIH (yes, THAT NIH) should suffice even the exceedingly high standards for sourcing which are set for anti-christianist material:

http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/content/PHY-249685/NIH-Director-Raps-American-College-of-Pediatricians-for-Distorting-Research-on-Homsexuality

Whoever stripped it, please put it back. If your won't, please have the courtesy to explain yourself here. Thank you.Panthera germanicus (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

PG, stop being so timid -- if you think it should be added, then add it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Notice how the very respectful of correctly attributing and reporting controversial claims the BBC reports the allegations http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8665812.stm . We at wikipedia should imo attempt to raise the quality of our reports to a similar level....brought from the BBC link provided.... A US Baptist minister and leading anti-gay campaigner has defended himself against allegations that he holidayed in Europe with a male prostitute. George Rekers was photographed at Miami international airport last month with a young man whom he allegedly met through a gay website called Rentboy.com.Mr Rekers said he hired the man as a travel assistant and "was not involved in any illegal or sexual behaviour". He said he only realised the man's profession once the trip had begun.

Hi OfftoRio, no that is not what I want added - I never said that. Certainly not that he is an anti homosexual activist, he is an anti-gay activist who believes that homosexuality can be cured, who (according to the young man he hired) hired a homosexual prostitute on a website that facilitates the hiring of homosexual prostitutes. He admits hiring the young man, but denies that he knew the young man was a homosexual prostitute, and that he obtained him via a site that facilitates the hiring of people for homosexual activies. Rekers claims that there was no sexual activity involved, but the young man says that there was erotic massage which included genital touching, and that he believes Rekers is a homosexual. The earliest reports suggested that rekers admitted using the site, but following his denials, later reports began to say he would deny using the site, then say that he denied using the site. Mish (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Re the BBC source, sure, but it is quite thin on detail, while this reliable independent source manages to do so in a more comprehensive way [6], and without focusing on only one side of the story.Mish (talk) 18:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Mark Foley parallell

I'm sure someone in a reliable source is going to point out the parallells to the Mark Foley congressional page incident, and when this happens this should go into the article. Would it be appropriate to include that link in the See also section already? __meco (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I think a better parallel is Pastor Ted. But I'd say let's leave it alone for now, even the See also; the link that's there seems enough to me. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Cannot see any relation, because that was a poltician involved in criminal behaviour. Nobody has joined the dots between on Rekers' selecting young flesh as a travel companion/masseuse and his professional involvement with the treatment of adolescent boys with sexual and gender identity issues, yet. As suggested, Ted Haggard seems a closer parallel, at the moment. Mish (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for putting the reference to Truth Wins Out back in Section 4.1. After saying for several days I wouldn't edit until the dust settles, I know it seems weird to make requests. My primary intention in mentioning something is to establish my objections now so nobody can later claim everybody was "ok" with a whitewash.

Interesting sidenote over on http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/ about all the LGBT and human rights groups now standing behind Geo, also some high-powered lawyers ready to slug it out with the christianists.Panthera germanicus (talk) 22:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

following discussion on BLP page

I have reduced the lead, and detail on the secondary allegation, as per conversation in the other place. The secondary allegation about 1992 has not been taken up widely, and it would be better to review this when the dust settles. All we need to know in the lead is that there is a scandal/controversy - not going into excessive details, that is what the section on this is for. In the text I have focused on inserting sources, tweaking prose, and where necessary ensuring the text reflects the source(s). Little substantive change, and have added nothing to the text itself. The statement I have tagged as requiring a source does need a source, otherwise it needs to go - but I will leave it there for somebody to provide a reliable secondary source, or delete, as appropriate. Mish (talk) 11:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

All seems appropriate. Getting to know his scholarly work a bit, this whole thing is starting to look like a Greek tragedy. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I have skimmed the citations for Kenneth Zucker's work, and he consistently cites Rekers in relation to the assesment process for kids with GID. This was initially developed by Richard Green, who understudied John Money, and Rekers effectively refined it. Interestingly, there is a paper Zucker and Robert Spitzer wrote in 2005 which includes Rekers as one of those who sought to get GID of childhood into DSM-III as a backdoor means of continuing to treat kids identified as potentially homosexual when homosexuality was removed from DSM-III:

• "Was the Gender Identity Disorder of Childhood Diagnosis Introduced into DSM-III as a Backdoor Maneuver to Replace Homosexuality? A Historical Note." Kenneth J. Zucker; Robert L. Spitzer; Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, Volume 31, Issue 1 2005 , pages 31 - 42

I hadn't appreciated quite how central a player he was in this, because he has always remained a bit of shadowy figure. Looks like if nothing else, his role in the way 'homosexual' and 'gender dysphoric' kids have been treated in the USA, Canada and the UK since the 1970s is going to come under scrutiny now; and it is also looking like a number of 'notables' could well get drawn into this reappraisal. Mish (talk) 12:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

If somebody has access to the Zucker & Spitzer paper, then it would be useful to see exactly what they say about Rekers' role; because if he was instrumental in getting this adopted in DSM-III, this would be something quite significant that needs to be in his biography somewhere. Mish (talk) 13:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I've had a look -- Rekers is mentioned, but only briefly and with no assertion that he had a direct role in the DSM-III discussions. They only note the fact that he viewed prevention of homosexuality as an explicit therapeutic goal in treatment of "gender identity disorders". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Chris0, unless I'm mistaken, you wrote on May 9, 2.36am:

Rekers has attracted attention for his views on homosexuality, which have been promoted in a number of forums and court cases. His research, which was heavily subsidized by the National Institute of Mental Health, asserts that homosexuality is a "gender disturbance" that can be corrected through 18 to 22 months of weekly therapy during childhood and adolescence.

I can't fimnd a source for the NIMH having supported this guy. Not that it would surprise me under Bush, but still - do you know where you got this?

Thanks!Panthera germanicus (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure of Pflag's status as a source, but this might help track this information down, as they suggest that Rekers himself states this somewhere:

• "The motivations of these prominent and well educated psychiatrists and psychologists is not fully understood. It is known, however, that Green and Rekers have received substantial funds through National Institute of Mental Health Grants. At least 1.5 million dollars were awarded by NIMH to study gender deviant behavior since the early 1970's. Reker's himself claims that the NIMH has funded him over a half a million dollars. The biased goals of the research is revealed in the language of the grant applications where references to atypical sex roles, atypical gender identity, modification of deviant behavior, and pre-transsexual behavior are included in the grant proposals. Other agencies funding gender corrective therapies are the Foundation Fund for Research in Psychiatry, the Research Scientist Development Award fund, the Public Health Service's clinical research grants, and the National Institute of Health's Biomedical Research Support grants." [7]

The claim is detailed on NARTH's site here:

• "Dr. George Rekers is Distinguished Professor of Neuropsychiatry and Behavioral Science Emeritus at the University of South Carolina School of Medicine. His work has been supported by more than one million dollars from private and governmental agencies, including NSF and NIMH." [8]

Which may be as reliable a source, but certainly not one that should be ignored in this respect? Mish (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:OR relying on primary sources relating to FRC site

The material about the Advocate reporting on the information on Rekers being taken down from the FRC site has been supplemented with information that the FAQ still susbequently does have this information - despite our not knowing when this was written into the FAQ, nor that it is different from the history page (as discussed here before the Advocate as a source was brought here). I did point out here - before it was posted up - that it was problematic for the same reason that the comparison of the history page, but this was ignored. Rather than risk an edit war by removing material like this from the BLP, I have qualified the statement in a neutral way, and supplemented this with the comparison of the before and after versions of the history pages. Personally, I do not like either insertion - and as I have also suggested previously, feel that the whole matter of the FRC site is not really relevant to this BLP, as it is about FRC not Rekers. I would prefer the whole series of statements be removed about the FRC website, because it is not really relevant, but am not prepared to remove it myself because somebody may decide to put it back, and that would be an edit war. If any of it is there, I would prefer it to be accurate and neutral - but really do feel the article is better off without any of it. Mish (talk) 01:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry, I had to remove the section, as it clearly violates three policies: WP:OR, WP:RELEVANCE and WP:UNDUE - in BLPs such violations have to be removed immediately. That the New Times printed the allegation that the Rekers relationship to FRC was removed is sourced to the Advocate - so clearly that is odd. It appears that this is not accurate, so the refutation had to be sourced to where it is in the FAQ; that means we are going beyond the claim, into original research on what becomes a primary source for this purpose. As we know, that is not the full story, because there was detail about Rekers that was removed - but we have no way of knowing exactly when that was taken down (nor when the FAQ information was inserted, nor whether it was removed and then replaced), nor even if that was actually what the Advocate referred to. In order to be accurate, we would need to provide the diffs, but that would mean using more WP:OR in order to neutralise some other WP:OR, all in order to balance something that has nothing to do with Rekers himself, and is thus irrelevant WP:RELEVANCE. In the process, we are constructing a passage that is of undue weight considering it is tangential to the article subject (it says more about the reporting and FRC than it does Rekers) WP:UNDUE. It is messy. If we have to do all this to maintain an irrelevant but erronious piece of information, then it would be better not to say anything on this matter. It is not that significant. Mish (talk) 02:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Mish, that's a toughy. I think, once the dust settles, it should be possible to establish through secondary sources the actions of all the christianist organizations (and the Florida governor's office) as well as the IRS accountings (I don't think I could get a sexual massage paid for on the basis of tax-free status, they are looking into him) and all the other matters which right now seem to be peripheral.

Personally, I don't think any of us know yet what is going to prove relevant and what is not.

Frankly, the whole reason I am not editing right now is because I fear it would lead to the edit war we so don't need.

At a minimum, I think it will ultimately be worth posting which organizations he founded or was sponsored by or worked with and their universal (at least, I haven't found any of these christianists saying: ::Dr. Rekers said it, we belive it, matter closed...and I've looked) actually stood behind him. Won't be a long list. Probably we can just put in one (carefully, secondarily sourced and cited) line: Virtually his entire previous cohort of thugs (no, I won't say "thugs" in the article) assumed guilty until proved innocent and tossed him out on his deeply-stroked, um, posterior."Panthera germanicus (talk) 09:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Good edit Mitch. It was just not worth it's dubious value and detracted from the clear statement from the organization themselves. Off2riorob (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Clear statement? Which one? I was not aware that we were required to provide our imprimatur to the hateful christianists. Once the dust settles, I very much intend to reference their actions, statements, counterstatements and on and on and on. They are notable, they are directly relevant to the bibliography (he either founded them or was active with them for decades) and their hateful decisions caused countless harm to inumerable gays and transgender. There is direct relevance and plenty of secondary sources which are not "non-cash" or "alternative" or "gay blogs".Panthera germanicus (talk) 14:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You should get some hot water for that soap. Off2riorob (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, That is the closet to a sense of humor you have shown.

Look, you began by biting the newbies. You continued by ignoring any discussion with me on controversial edits - and it was very quickly clear that you knew not everybody here felt you and you alone were the keeper of the sacred NPOV. You battled every single point in favor of the christianist (and your point of view is still strongly tilted that way). All that said - I'm not going to go away and, once the dust settles, I shall be editing this article. You're either going to have to learn to work with those here who (gasp!)don't share your favorable views of the christianist or there will be massive edit wars. I'd rather we work together. This is why I am not editing right now. This is why I have stated I won't make any changes without posting them here first. You're stuck with me, so maybe you should try to work with me to ensure the highest posible adherence to NPOV and the best quality of article.

I am well aware of my bias here and am honestly admitting it because I want to maintain NPOV. BUT NPOV does not mean "whitewash".Panthera germanicus (talk) 14:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, close to humour, thanks. I like to support living people. How would this article get written if it was only written by people that don't like him? I have simply been trying to add some balance. I still think the comment in the lede is a complete misrepresentation of the actual situation..Rekers hired a male prostitute, that is simply false reporting. Off2riorob (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Was it a female prostitute? Was it a male monk? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It was...he hired a man who was a male prostitute....not he hired a male prostitute....that falsely asserts that he wanted a male prostitute and he hired one as in...I want to hire a male prostitute...absolute false reporting. Off2riorob (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

This is one of the closest NPOV expressions that we have had in the lede...In May 2010, the Miami New Times reported that Rekers hired a travel assistant who was a male prostitute. Off2riorob (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm -- next time I hire a "travel assistant" I had better specify that I'm not interested in naked massages. By the way, did you ever work out whom you should have written to (instead of me) to complain about allegedly false accusations of disruptiveness? You never responded after I replied on my talk page! Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes ok, I can apologize here, sorry, I wrongly pointed the accusatory finger at you, I was mistaken. The indenting sometimes gets extremely hard to follow here. I didn't look back, when I get a bit heated I tend to remove pages from my watchlist as I find that is a good way to move on. Off2riorob (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I know it looks dodgy but the reality is being misrepresented because editors are saying, it is obvious but that is not the way to report. He did not hire a male prostitute as is being asserted in the lede, it really does need changing. Off2riorob (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Any poor indenting (indentationing?!) is mine.

Off2riorob, rentboy.com and its owners say he hired Geo.

rentboy.com sells the services of male prostitutes (nomen est omen, et cetra)

Geo advertises explicitly as a male prostitute

Before he lawyered up, Dr. Rekers said he got him from there

Do you really want to reflect reality here or Dr. Rekers' version thereof?Panthera germanicus (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If you are concerned about the loss of Rekers' role as one of the founder board members of FRC, I am sure we can add that in to the list of organisations he is or has been associated with. That can be sourced to the site as it now stands, and doesn't need the inclusion of problematic material about it on the FRC site. Mish (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Rentboy dot com and its owners have said nothing. Rentboy dot com do not sell the services of male prostitutes at all, rentboy dot com sell advertising to people attracted to the open and free placing of adverts put on its site by anyone that wants to, there is no official involvement of rentboy in prostitution of anybody. . The fact that Geo advertises as a prostitute is irrelevant. Rekers had a contract, that contract was not to hire a prostitute was it? no it was not. There is POV in the lede and I would like it corrected. I will add a template if no one is prepared to correct it.Off2riorob (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I should very much like to know what, precisely, is under dispute? is it the lede? if so, what word or sentence or phrase? Off2riorob, I can't help but feel that much of our discord is based on the fact that you feel very strongly about these matters (as do all of us here) but are not able to communicate your feelings on the matter to us. Since I have promised to make no changes until things settle, obviously this is an excellent time for us to try to fix this up.

If I understand you correctly - and I probably don't, then you are troubled that the article reports Dr. Rekers hired a male prostitute from a site that specializes in advertising male prostitutes? Is that correct?

What do you want as an alternative?Panthera germanicus (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

There you are, is that better - it seems to sum up what was reported by the source. Mish (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I have been posting my issues about this comment in the lede for a couple of days now and have posted above what I see as the best NPOV additions. No it is not better, is is POV, sexual massage Please consider he is a living person, it is all to easy t add content that belongs on some opinionated blog but we should report to a higher standard. Off2riorob (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm trying to figure out what you mean by "POV". I'm getting the sense that by "POV" you mean "icky". Or perhaps "salacious". Anyway, if we can get back to basics: let's just stick to what is in the sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, I may have just been hit by the clue bus. It doess't matter to you whether we can verify through high-quality secondary sources that he hired a male prostitute from a site specializing in the advertising of and offering initial contact between male prostitutes and clients - you just plain don't want those facts in the article.

Same with the Geo massaging his penis. You don't want that in the article.

Basically, you don't want anything which in any way, shape or form reports the facts that Rekers is a hypocritical christianist who has destroyed the lives of countless gays through the years while himself paying rentboys in the article.

Is that basically it?Panthera germanicus (talk) 21:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I know it looks bad, but basically even if I support your summary, we do still need to report in a conservative way and should use the highest quality of citations and report as accurately as possible in a neutral manner. 22:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

But if conservative is your POV, why conclude that it is the POV that ought to be adopted? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Please define "conservative". Do you mean "just the facts, ma'am" or do you mean "anything which shows how hateful christianists are toward gay and transgender must never appear, especially when their hypocrisy is so enourmous?Panthera germanicus (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I don't get it - are we saying this is not what was reported? That is what was reported, and that was what all the fuss was about. We are not saying whether we think he did these things, just that it was reported that this is what was said, and the consequences of this report - his chums seem to have said 'how sad', and at the same time, 'but we've not had much to do with him for a while', and dropping him off their party invites. I don't think there's anything in BLP policy that we have to censor awkward material about somebody, quite the opposite - we have to let the facts speak for themselves. The fact is this did get reported this way, and our pretending it didn't serves no purpose.Mish (talk) 22:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the edit Revision as of 04:31, May 12, 2010

I find no mention of either term in the text cited. Why was the change made? What is the original term? If the term was used in the source, why are we chaning it? Political correctness? If PC, then how do we align the change with the wikipedia article which, itself, uses both terms interchangeably?

I would very much appreciate an answer to this!Panthera germanicus (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It helps if you provide a link to the diff you are referring to. Mish (talk) 12:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, after a night of vandalism & reverting, somebody restored the navbox to show that Rekers' profession was "Gay rights activist", then at 04:31 somebody removed that. Not sure what the problem with that is. Nobody has ever claimed he is a gay rights activist, have they? Has he? I've looked through the whole of the 12th, and cannot find any problematic insertions that have not been reverted. So, could you spell out what the problem is, as I cannot see what it is you are referring to. Mish (talk) 13:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Primary report

<ref name="Busted">{{cite news|url=http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2010-05-13/news/how-george-alan-rekers-and-his-rent-boy-got-busted-by-new-times/ | date=2010-05-13 | first1=Brandon K. | last1=Thorp | first2=Penn | last2=Bullock | publication=MiamiNewTimes |title=How George Alan Rekers and his Rent-boy got Busted by New Times}}</ref> This is the primary report of this incident and you can't use it as a citation, to support content. Off2riorob (talk) 13:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Mish, I'm sorry. Why can't you simply read my mind and see my intentions? There's room enough in those echoing spaces. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Alan_Rekers&oldid=361640736

The editor seems to have a problem politically correct terminology. Apart from my general dislike for exaggerated PC, there is the minor detail that we don't change citations to match the PC-wisdom-of-the-ages-du-jour...or do we? In any case, I couldn't find the information, whether under Native Americans or Indigineous People at the cite listed.

Off2riorob, when you set a nomination or lable you are also expected to include a thorough analysis of why on the talk page. Which, as usual, you did not do. You will note that I, upon every single administrative request have mentioned the matter here on this talk page. You never do.

Off2riorob, I strongly resent, actively resist and thoroughly demand you restore your edit of

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Alan_Rekers&oldid=361677525

you replaced:

through a website called Rentboy.com to travel with him and carry his bags and provide massage that invloved genital touching for the duration of a ten-day trip to Europe

with:

to travel with him and carry his bags and provide massage once a day for the duration of a ten-day trip to Europe

That is not excessive commentary, it is relevant and pertinent. Put it back, please. Either put it back or give a genuine explanation. You don't just get to cite a guideline and expect everyone to accept it when it does not apply. I really would like to avoid an edit war here and you give every appearance of trying to whitewash this to the advantage of Dr. Rekers.

Thank you.Panthera germanicus (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Off2Rio. No it isn't. It is a secondary report. The primary report was over a week ago. The publication date for this is tomorrow. Mish (talk) 14:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You are supposed to explain the posting of a POV tag here. Just to remind you that a POV tag is not to be used because the text does not conform to your POV, and does not have to remain until the article is changed so you are happy with it. The consensus here seems to be that your edits are not NPOV. I'm unclear then why you are tagging an article where your edits seem to be the most problematically POV-oriented.Mish (talk) 14:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Mish, thank you. I took a lot of shit for stating right from the get-go that I am gay and want to see a NPOV article. Well, I stand by that, even though, to be honest, I don't personally see how the outing of a closeted gay man and his Roman adventures (perhaps on the taxpayers' dime? any answers to that yet?) with a male prostitute helps us explain that being gay has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with immutable characteristica.

Regardless, if Off2riorob is unwilling to explain his motivations and unwilling to work with the rest of us and unwilling to ever post on the discussion page first when he knows we all find the matter controversial...what is the next step in conflict resolution?

Panthera germanicus (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, Panthera, I guess that for those who aren't getting any, it must seem to be all about sex. You only have to look at the list of 'backsliders' who seem to turn to 'rent boys' when they cannot control their passions to see this. You never come across a headline 'Reverend's secret relationhsip with another man' do you? At least, when that does happen, it is a Gene Robinson, who has 'come out' in the process - rather than entrenchment in denial. Sure, it is all about identity, relationships, and the way people are. I often wonder whether it is precisely the closeting and denial that facilitates this rough trade, because when one is out, with no need to hide, one can engage in open relationship where there is a certain equivalence - and so the power politics of having to pay for sex is really not significant in many LGBT people's lives. The need for anonymity in sex, and the power to use money to get what is needed and ensure it remains hidden, this is a product of this type of lifestyle (the closet) - and of course, it is that which runs totally contrary to the Gospel. The act itself is not the problem, it is the way people are exploited and dehumanised as a product of the religious ideology that insists that what cannot be resisted has to be prohibited. What is being reported here, if we are to consider it credible, is anti-Christian as much as anti-gay - not because of the activity engaged in, but the way in which it has been engaged in. Given the history of the individual as a highly inlfuential psychologist in terms of a certain style of Christian approach to potentially gay, lesbian and transgender children, as well as a more widely used assessment of gender dysphoria as an indicator or potential homosexuality or gender identity disorder, and his representations to legal and judicial bodies - then this situation is most definitely in need of inclusion in his biography, espcially as it does appear to suggest that organisations he has been associated with appear to now be emphasising some distance between them and him. It needs to be covered for what it is, in neutral terms; neutrality is not trying to hide what has been stated as a matter of public record, but to state what is sensational in a way that is not itself sensational. If a reader sees what as written as being deeply hypocritical, anti-Christian, etc., that is not our problem - as long as we do not present it in that way ourselves; we have to present the facts, it is our duty and if we fail to do so then we are negligent, and the reader can make their own mind up. We do not massage the facts as reported because we are concerned that readers might interpret them in a way we would rather they didn't. Sermon over.Mish (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Mish. By now it must be obvious (time stamps) that I live in a civilized country with gay marriage and where separation of church and state means that the christianists don't get to tell Christians and the rest of the country what to do.

As I've mentioned before, this foreign "lifestyle" also has led to my alienation from the intricacies of political correctness. That, however, is not so terribly relevant - what's PC today is a hanging offence tomorrow and I just try to focus on not discriminating against anyone by word or deed.

There is a school of thought which maintains that very deep hatred towards gays among conservative Christians arises from people who abuse the Bible to justify their hatred. Lots of support for that, I'm just barely old enough to remember Loving vs. Virginia.

There is also a school of thought which maintains that the nastiest christianists are so hateful towards gays because they are repressing their own sexuality. As gay men, of course they find sex with other men (and affection, and love) desirable. Since they have to "settle" on women because that is the "natural order", this explains their frequent statements about marriage being a duty, not a joy...and their firm conviction, so often expressed, that gay behavior is so terribly, terribly tempting and must be resisted.

Well, of course it is tempting for them - they are gay, playing at being straight. Talk about contra naturam! I have frequently slept in one bed with straight friends while traveling or when there were no alternatives. Not once has one of them "succumbed" to the temptation nor even once found it to be a fight. But at least twice, the reason I ended up sharing a bed with a straight friend was because the alternative was his sleeping with a woman and he knew his girlfriend would be very unhappy...and he was not sure he could resist...

Beats me, but I do think one's sexual orientation is relevant.

So where do we go from here? It's obvious that Off2riorob is either unwilling or unable to find mutual ground on aspects of the article which are central. It is at least as obvious (and sure as hell will become critical the second I begin editing) that I am unable to find any agreement with him. The fact that I am willing to post first, edit last is only a minor point in my favor - the real problem remains.

Do we need a moderator? Should we revert to 3 Mai 2010 and leave it be for a bit? Shall we toss a coin, heads I win and we use your version, tails he looses and we use your version?

That was a joke, Off2riorob and I do hope your are going to work with me here, I am trying. Well, yeah, I am, but I am also seriously interested in resolving this in the interest of serious, high-quality, NPOV biographical article on a living person. A major jerk, but still, a person.Panthera germanicus (talk) 16:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you guys please leave the cultural and religious discussions to another forum? Let's just stick to discussing improvement to the article.   Will Beback  talk  17:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

"Rekers wrote to Brandon Tharp" -- what?

I'm puzzled by the third paragraph in the Rentboy Allegations section. What is supposed to be learned from the fact that Rekers wrote to the reporter? Whatever it is, I'm tempted to conclude that that paragraph isn't consistent with WP:UNDUE -- it seems like a rather peripheral element of the episode. Thoughts? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it could be summed up in one or two short sentences:

• The Miami New Times reported that Rekers had written to one of the reporters, saying that he (Rekers) had been advised on how to guide his assistant in making a statement to the newspaper, and part of the guidance was that following the statement, his assistant should "stop giving interviews". The Miami New Times subsequently reported that the advisor was a fellow NARTH board-member.

Funny how objection of the status of 'New Times' as a primary source seems to relate more to the content of the text sourced to it than the source itself. Mish (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I have implemented a change along these lines, and merged the reduction of this paragraph into the time-line/context laid out in the previous paragraph. Mish (talk) 07:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Paragraph 5: Rentboy Allegations

Might the opening paragraph there be boiled down a bit? The word "reported" is used so many times it's not only redundant, it's beginning to look like "reportedly". For example, do we have to say "Lucien"/whoever was "reported" to be available at rentboy.com? No one is disputing that. He was available at the site. Similarly, must we say he was "reported" to be at the airport? He was at the airport. Perhaps it could read more like:

COULD BE?: The Miami New Times reported on May 4, 2010 that three weeks previously, Rekers had been photographed at Miami International Airport with "Lucien" (later identified as Jo-Vanni Roman), a twenty-year-old "rent boy"[6][43] available for hire through the "Rentboy.com" website.

CURRENTLY: The Miami New Times reported on May 4, 2010 that three weeks previously, Rekers had been photographed at Miami International Airport with a man reported to be a twenty-year-old "rent boy" using the name "Lucien" (later identified as Jo-Vanni Roman).[6][43] Roman was reported to be available for hire through the "Rentboy.com" website.

Codenamemary (talk) 00:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, of course, you're quite right Codenamemary. Unfortunately, some editors sees that matter differently.

Good luck with getting them to agree to a simple posting of the facts. Their version of "NPOV" seems to be: If it shows Dr. Rekers or the christianists for the hypocritical, hateful people the are, then it must either be removed or so debased as to be of no value.

Be bold, as long as you adhere to the pertinent guidelines on biographies of living persons I think it would be wonderful to see less "teh evil gayz" made him reportedly do it and more "he did this, and here is where, when, what, how and with whom".Panthera germanicus (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. I've been saying this for several days, and I think we can now conclude there is a consensus for a change along these lines. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree - as long as we make clear that this is a report, we don't need to keep emphasising it is a report, claim, allegation, etc. Several of us have been saying this, but one (or two?) people seem to want this story watered down for some reason. Mish (talk) 06:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Mish, are you accusing me of wanting a fact-based, NPOV, biography of a living person? Why, yes, I do believe you are! Fountain pens at 100 feet, sirah!

Seriously, part of the problem is that the editor(s) who don't agree with the approach most of us seem comfortable with aren't really willing to talk it out with the rest of us. Ironic, in a way - the conflicts in approach to this article and the conflicts driving the Dr. Rekers scandal are both anchored in the hate teh gayz mentality of the christianists.Panthera germanicus (talk) 09:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

We have to assume good faith here, so we do not assume that just because somebody wants an article that waters-down what is said in sources, that this is because they have a bias that favours an ideology and seeks to present the subject in a certain light. We might think it, but we never state that, because that is uncivil. By the same token, they would not suggest our wishing to stick to what the sources say might be because we have a bias that favours an ideology and seeks to present the subject in a certain light. In our case, as long as we do try and stick to the sources, then it is a more difficult thing to substantiate - whereas consistently trying to suppress sources that give reports about the subject in a bad light is not really ever going to run, because it runs contrary to the ethos of the encyclopdia. This is why I feel we have to stick to what the sources say, and that this is probably the most important principle in allowing the encyclopedia to function, as it rests on accuracy and verifiability. There is no getting around that, no matter how much people squirm. I am a Christian myself, although I am no longer associated with an organisation that institutionalises homophobia and/or ignores homophobia amongst its members (CofE/Anglican) - but I don't think you can go around accusing people of being christianists, just because they defend the rights of somebody who purports to be Christian but is so only in name.Mish (talk) 10:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Valid point, Mish. After every undo and edit and re-edit and watering down and whitewash since 3 May 2010, I no longer assume good faith. Sorry, I just don't.

I want exactly what you want. I just don't see one or two editors here striving toward that goal. Personally, I am a Christian, just, as a gay man I've been told so often by the christianists that I can't be gay and a Christian, I've had it with them.

So, where do we go from here? Off2riorob has put up a conflict template yet steadfastly refuses to engage in any discussion, apart from threatening to "report" me and whitewashing the article at every opportunity. I think it's time to call for help, get the matter settled and move on.92.194.90.53 (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

That was quick! THANKS! That bit reads much better now. Looking back over the discussion page, I admire how you've all stuck around to keep on top of changes, as I know the back-and-forth can be REALLY frustrating. To my thinking, a resource's readability is EXTREMELY important. What use is mounds of accuracy if your average person can't grasp what's being said, and fairly quickly? Thanks for trying to give this story some shape people can absorb, and draw their own conclusions about, from there. Codenamemary (talk) 18:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality template

OK, the neutrality template has been added to the article? I just read over the current version's Rentboy sections, and it appears accurate and well-sourced. What is the alleged problem?--Milowent (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Milowent, I hope you can find out. Repeated requests from me have been treated to absolute silence on this page - and continued white-washing of the article. Panthera germanicus (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem either. What you added/edited looks OK to me, but the statement about the defamation lawyer needs to be in the body text if it is going to be in the lead (as that is meant to summarise the article), and it ought to have a source.Mish (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Joy, joy, happy, happy - The Liberty Counsel is now making noises about supporting Dr. Rekers in a defamation case. I think we should hold up a bit on any further entries in this regard until something on all of this has settled. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/13/same-sex-researchers-defamation-claim-backed/

Hmm, does the Washing Times count as a "non-cash" alternative newspaper or (gasp!) Gay Blog or is it a real source? Questions, questions...

Personally, I think the court hearing on the matter would be fascinating, simply fascinating.

Seriously, though, if we just could hold off for a bit? So far, every time we've tried to be up-to-the-minute, we've had serious editing to do.Panthera germanicus (talk) 14:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I guarantee you he will not a file a defamation lawsuit. The fact that this Liberty Counsel said they would back him up is a minor detail.--Milowent (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I have been following the discussion on this page. I removed the template due to the lack of any stated NPOV problem. For the template to be re-inserted, please state at least one specific problem using a direct quote with a description of what is objectionable.

Panthera, could I respectfully request that you try to limit commentary about your feelings. This is not a discussion board and I mean this in the nicest way, but I am a little hurt to hear of anyone celebrating another person's tragedy even if the person may have deserved the justice. That goes for others; sorry for targeting you. Thanks. Blue Rasberry 14:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, Bluerasberry. I appreciate your taking an interest in this article.

Personally, I have suffered considerably at the hands of these christianists and I do take enormous satisfaction in seeing them shown up for what they really are. No point in pretending otherwise. I'll try real hard to ignore the reality of these hateful people and the horrible things they have done to me and others in the gay and transgender community.

Which is my whole interest in this article: I figure a NPOV, accurate biography of Dr. Rekers will do more damage to their movement than anything else. This, of course, is why there are also such strong efforts to whitewash the article and block any verifiable entries which make him look like what he is coming from some editors.

I'll behave, but I am very much going to call foul loudly and strongly when the editors who are whitewashing don't.Panthera germanicus (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I take no delight in Rekers situation. I hope he has his gay Damascus moment (but am skeptical). My concern is more to do with the defamation and abuse he has been peddling and imposing on vulnerable children, which appears to have influenced notable clinical psychologists beyond certain Christian circles. Mish (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should call him a "gay" psychologist and am glad it was reverted. It is more damning to tell the story straight out of reputable resources and let the informed reader decide for him or herself.Panthera germanicus (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

ex-"ex-gay"-psychologist?

No, no really - by sticking strictly to the facts, we are fulfilling the mission of Wikipedia. I don't think anyone doubts my personal feelings here, just - let's stick to the verifiable stuff. Panthera germanicus (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I am "limiting commentary about my feelings", but will just add that I do not take joy in this story, either. My reaction is a combination of feeling sad, and feeling sick. It's all just so sordid. (And if one is to believe Rekers' statement, just how did he supposedly "find out" "halfway through the trip" his employee was a prostitute?? Do such details ordinarily pop up in the usual workday of luggage lifting??)Codenamemary (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess some people can tell the difference between a pro and an amateur when it comes to "the long stroke"? But, that goes beyond the sources.Mish (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Rekers hired him after finding him at rentboy.com. He had Geo give him two "massages" prior to embarking on their trip.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.Panthera germanicus (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Codenamemary, I don't know about the usual work-a-day world of luggage lifters, my understanding of the matter was that Geo was hired as a bag lifter.

That's an entirely different vocation and one which certainly explains why Dr. Rekers went to rentboy.com for him. How very strange that Dr. Rekers has failed to come up with any of these peoples' names who allegedly introduced him to the young man. And no, before anyone goes screaming off to the administrators, that's a valid point...either he hired him through Geo's ad in rentboy.com or his friends introduced them. One or the other, but not both. Or am I missing something?Panthera germanicus (talk) 21:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

We might have to wait for the trial depositions to clarify who close to Rekers gave referrals for RentBoy. It would be a great public service if Rekers' call for a trial goes forward. Both sides should agree on that, anyway.Codenamemary (talk) 00:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think a public hearing under oath on the whole matter would be fascinating. Especially the testimony under oath part. Thank goodness Geo has some serious people from human and civil rights groups backing him up. I'll refrain from further comment.Panthera germanicus (talk) 01:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Additional Clarity in Lede?

In the third paragraph of the lede, the phrasing can be interpreted as if Roman had specifically advertised himself as a "travel assistant". Is that established? First off, in the recorded conversation when the Miami New Times verified the story (http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2010/05/rekers_on_the_record.php), Dr. Rekers specifically refers to Mr. Roman as a "travel companion" six times (it's also the phrase he says he Googled), and the journalist uses the phrase once in the conversation and is not corrected by Rekers. I think "travel companion" is the more accurate phrase to use, as the description "travel assistant" doesn't appear until days later in an announcement on Reker's site, where it's used half as many times. BE THAT AS IT MAY, the job description might be moved elsewhere in the sentence, as the wording now implies Roman specifically advertised himself as a "travel assistant" at rentboy.com...which I don't think is the case.

COULD BE?: In May 2010, the Miami New Times reported that Rekers had hired a male "travel companion" who advertised as a prostitute on the website Rentboy.com to travel with him, carry his bags, and provide daily one-hour nude sexual massages during a ten-day European vacation.[5][6][7] In wake of the story, Rekers denied any inappropriate conduct, and stated that he had hired a defamation attorney to fight untrue claims made against him.[8][9] He also resigned from the Board of NARTH.[8][9]

CURRENTLY: In May 2010, the Miami New Times reported that Rekers had hired a man who offered male prostitution through a website called Rentboy.com as a "travel assistant" to travel with him, carry his bags, and provide daily one-hour nude sexual massages during a ten-day trip to Europe.[5][6][7] In wake of the story, Rekers denied any inappropriate conduct, and stated that he had hired a defamation attorney to fight untrue claims made against him.[8][9] He also resigned from the Board of NARTH.[8][9] Codenamemary (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no issues with changing this to read companion, if that is what the earlier sources state. I do not have a problem with saying he 'hired a male travel companion', as long as we are clear that the companion says that the companionship also included sexual massage, while Rekers that the companionship was for luggage handling. In other words, we need to keep the nature of that companionship open. I would not be happy saying he 'hired a male travel assistant' in the same way, because that implies Rekers version is true, and the companion's is not - and we simply do not know which version is correct. If we give over-credence to Rekers' account, we run into BLP issues with regard his companion; if we give over-credence to the companion's account, we run into BLP issues with regard to Rekers. It may help to run the idea of companionship through to the different takes on what that companionship entailed - i.e., state that Rekers states that the companionship entailed luggage handling, and the companion states that it entailed sexual massage.Mish (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am with you. I actually had to go back and edit my earlier comment because it got so confusing going back and forth between the two terms in discussion and examples. The Original Paragraph uses the term "Travel Assistant", which I object to. The phrase Rekers used in the verification phone call from Miami New Times (and claims he searched under) was "Travel Companion". "Travel Companion" seems to be the more accurate phrase to use....in place of where "Travel Assistant" was originally used in that particular, opening section. (I don't mean the "RentBoy Allegations", paragraph 5, I addressed yesterday). I'm sorry if I was unclear.Codenamemary (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think "travel companion" is a good compromise. Ultimately, if the christianists do force this to a court trial, we will have the contract and testimony under oath. At that point, it might well be necessary to adjust. Personal companion? Masseuse cum porter? I can't document it, but I've worked all my professional life with professors in his age group. I genuinely suspect Dr. Rekers was not prepared for Geo to be intelligent, articulate and literate. This takes on more and more aspects of a proper Greek tragedy. In all senses of the word.

Panthera germanicus (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Section break: Rekers' doctrinal beliefs

Mish, I'm sorry, but I firmly believe that this additional material in Section 4.4 serves no useful purpose in this article. Should a reader desire more information about fundamentalist Christianity or be interested in researching conservative Christian motivations, or Dr. Rekers' Interact International Inc., then there are plenty of places to find them. This is purely proselyting Christianity and has no place here.Panthera germanicus (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I restored the doctrinal positions of Rekers' own ministry. Stating the doctrinal positions he has set out is not proselytising, it is illustrating the beliefs that he subscribes to. I don't subscribe to most of this myself (belief in Satan seems antithetical to belief in God), but that doesn't mean his beliefs as a minister should be excluded in his BLP - including his believing in Satan as a personality. Given his psychological weltanschauung is inesxtricably bound up with his faith, it seems quite significant.Mish (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it isn't being presented as proselytizing but rather as characterizing his beliefs. That said, we might take the view that it is more about the organization than about Rekers himself (though he is obviously a central character in the former). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Mish, I certainly agree that readers may well be interested in his "Christian" beliefs, I just don't feel that this is the right page for them. Wikipedia has quite a fair amount on the religion to which a reader could refer. I just don't see a need for it in this article. I've looked around, most articles on notable Christians (most, thank goodness, notable not for these reasons) and don't find such descriptions of their purported religion. Could we perhaps compromise by linking to one of the Wikipedia articles on fundamentalist-conservative-evangelical Christianity? That would provide the information adequately. No?Panthera germanicus (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I need to look into this further, but I would be surprised if people who have established a ministry, mission or church do not give some detail about the doctrinal statements. One would need to establish which congregations hold a similar set of doctrinal beliefs. I am assuming his ministry is of Wesleyan/Methodist roots, although his doctrinal statements suggest this is charismatic (which I believe is still unusual in Methodism). Given his work and the way his irrational weltanschauung clearly influences his psychological positions, I do feel that this is highly relevant to understanding the nature of the POV reflected in his work - not proselytising. Mish (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well, he has been deeply involved in many organizations involved in making life hell-on-earth for gays, transgender and kids who aren't sufficiently 1950's boy or girl in their behavior. Should we then give such detailed information on the underlying concept of each of these? Electroshock, stripping children away from their parents, et al? What about the conflicts between other Christian beliefs (I'm a Christian, was raised a Methodist and the only thing this man has in common with John Wesley is that they were both in London...). Surely, if we are going to list the premises allegedly behind this Interact International, then we should do so for NARTH and all the others...with, in each case, equal space given to the considerable controversy over each of these "Christian" organizations and their application of Christian values.

Seriously, I really object to this. Let folks who want to pursue the "values" behind his organizations look them up, they are not truly pivotal zu seiner Weltanschauung.

Speaking of which, isn't it going too far for us to speculate on his personal belief and values system? From my perspective, it consists of sex with rentboys and mis-using biblical texts to make lots of money, electroshock and torture gays and turn life to a living hell for the transgender, and no, I am not indulging hyperbole nor bloviating.Panthera germanicus (talk) 20:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, what you said is not quite correct. We do tend to comment on doctrines, where they relate to people's life, work, ministries, theology, etc.

• John Wesley#Doctrines_and_theology
• Jim Wallis#Theology
• John Shelby_Spong#Writings
• Hans Kung#Work
• Karl Barth#Theology
• Dr Martyn Lloyd Jones#Legacy
• J. I. Packer#Views on Controversial Issues

Although, that is not entirely relevant. It is not speculation, we list this organisation, it is his ministry, this is the doctrine of his ministry. Of course this is significant: you don't get liberal protestant psychologists or organisations involved with the ex-gay movement, do you? It says a lot to me, like he subscribes to doctine that includes belief in personal entities antithetical to Christianity, baptism in the Holy Spirit, justification by faith, that humans are fallen creatures, eternal damnation for the lost, etc. This is his BLP, this is his ministry, it needs to be included - if that is associated with his exploitation of young gay people, and torture of transgender children, I don't see why I would want to avoid that association. Don't see the problem. Mish (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Mish, I see where you are coming from, just, either this listing doesn't go far enough or it goes too far. It's all very well and good to list basic tenants of fundamentalist American Christianity, but we have no connection between this listing and the enormous, hateful agenda to which they are put. That is why I denounced this as proselyting originally.

From my perspective, it would be enough to resolve the matter in the same way it is under John Shelby Spong - here the text: Spong's writings rely on Biblical and non-Biblical sources, and are influenced by modern critical analysis of these sources (see especially Spong, 1991).

include a link to their website and let readers investigate their "principles" for themselves.

In many ways, the two are comparable in that they both begin with the Bible and end with one advocating humane treatment of those with whom one disagrees and the other using electroshock and working as an expert witness to have children stripped forcefully from their parents.Panthera germanicus (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

If you can provide a link to this doctrinal statement somewhere else within the encyclopedia, I am fine with that. I know what fundamentalist American Christianity is - although I defy you tie this down in a way that everybody would agree with. I understand that Christians with deep psychological problems spend much of their time talking about hell and damnation and the devil (and qweerz), hiding their inner turmoil and self-loathing behind plastic smiles while they project their personal problems onto 'the others', while well-adjusted Christians tend to be more concerned with loving God with all one's heart, mind and spirit, loving their neighbour as themselves, getting theior own houses in order and taking specks out of their own eyes. This relatively new American cult you refer to, which is really a corruption of Christianity by restorationism and pentecostalism, has begun to cause problems in this country (as it does every country America exports it to) - particularly within Anglicanism. My understanding is that there are nuances which distinguish fundamentalists, charismatics and evangelicals - so it would not be sufficient to state that his ministry is one thing or another without more detail backed up by sources. Clearly, from the doctrine, it falls somewhere within this grouping somewhere. However, without something more detailed, I'd be reluctant to replace the doctrinal coverage with something that might actually be inaccurate (especially in a BLP); I wouldn't want to say this was fundamentalist, only to find he isn't, but rather an evangelical methodist, or charismatic house-church, or whatever. If you have access to sources that detail this more specifically, by all means include that. In the meantime, I think that the best we can show is what the doctrine is, then people will understand where his ministry (and thereby him) might lie. We are not drawing a synthesis, because all we are doing is stating the doctrine of the ministry as defined by his ministry's website. I have to admit I was surprised by this challenge, because I couldn't envision any challenge to it, certainly not in the form it took - and went to some trouble to grasp what the doctrine was, reducing it down to the barest essentials. Statements of doctrine are not proselytising - they are what evangelicals (etc.) tend to hit people with after they have been converted; believe in satan tends to come later, after you have convinced them that there is a God and they will still be alive when they are dead. Mish (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Mish, I am also familiar with the concept, and the evil resulting there from.

Personally, I would far rather discuss things first, then change them in consensus. I'm out of time this evening so a search of the encyclopedia will have to wait a bit, but, yes, I think that would be a good solution. I agree that it is next to impossible to find a category for the group of conservative, evangelical, fundamentalist, etc. Christians which any of them will accept. Anyway, I shall look and then let you know what I have found.

Two other edits I shall be implementing this week will be to add the statement by the NIH director on Rekers' "American College of Pediatricians" to that reference. http://www.nih.gov/about/director/04152010_statement_ACP.htm

I feel a director of the NIH carries sufficient notability to justify it.

The second edit will be a position statement from a notable transgender group on the work of Dr. Zuker which will provide balance.Panthera germanicus (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)