Talk:George Rekers/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Vacation, or Business Trip?

Has it been mentioned in any news sources if there was actual business or official research Dr. Rekers was conducting in Europe? Was it purely a pleasure trip? Codenamemary (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Define "pleasure", codenamemary. Actually, I have yet to see anything about that. It is a very valid question and one worth pursuing. Here's another one. Was this a tax-exempt trip?Panthera germanicus (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Another Q to follow-up on: Was it Around-the-World?Codenamemary (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It was to Europe, Italy and Britain I think (forget where I read that). No reason to think it would have been round the world, as it would take less than 12 hours to get from Europe to Florida flying West, but up to 36 hours flying East (and would necessitate at least two stops on the way). Having done a trip half-way round the world, I doubt very much anybody would do 2/3 round the world unless they really really had to. Mish (talk) 01:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It is interesting if he did visit Britain, as I am not aware of any conferences here that he would have attended - I usually get to hear about these things through queer/sexology lists. There was a trans demo here when Zucker attended a meeting at the Royal College of Psychiatrists not long ago, and I can't imagine that somebody with Rekers' track record wouldn't have attracted some form of protest, or at least a mention in the gay press or amongst 'gender' groups. It did make me wonder what he might have been doing here. Considering how the Pink Paper here has reported on this, I'm surprised they haven't tried to dig up what he was doing here. There are groups here like Outrage! who are very good at outing people who are anti-gay yet live a double life - I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that the reason the photographers were at the airport when he flew home was not because of anything as sinister as him being 'set-up', but far more mundane - somebody probably spotted him and his companion, picked up the telephone and tipped off somebody in the States. Outrage! was founded by Peter Tatchell out of the ashes of the UK GLF; he virtually invented outing anti-gay clergy who are secretly homosexual. Of course, this is all speculation.Mish (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry; "around the world" is hooker lingoCodenamemary (talk) 02:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh right - outside my experience I'm afraid. Nice to know that I can still be naive about some things at my age. (what does it mean?) Mish (talk) 02:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear....I see we are in need of another wikipedia entry. Jeepers, the people THAT one will draw out! Codenamemary (talk) 02:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I am sure that will cause problems on the DAB page...

I added some stuff from Christianity today, it seems they are reporting on Rekers' new euphemism "unwise decision". It is interesting, because it appears that he knew Gio for a month before the trip. This got me interested, and in the interview with Gio, he says this was a vacation [1]; if you put this together with the eight-hours a day companionship he was contracted for, then it would make sense that they went on holiday together - because if this had been a professional trip, Rekers would have been busy at meetings/seminars/conferences for most of the time. It is interesting how the commentaries seem to have elided that this was a holiday. I was wrong about the locations, it was Britian (London), but the other city was Madrid (Spain). Mish (talk) 03:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Several stand up comics have noted the "around the world" and "when in Rome" aspects of this but I doubt we could put them in without a major edit war. We have to pretend to be shocked, shocked I tell you.

It is worth at least a section all by itself to note the hypocrisy of the christianists regarding this matter. First, the usual stalinesque purge of Dr. Rekers and denials they know him...or at least, have seen him in the last ten years. Then, the usual bull about how he's fallen, etc. Next, the threats of legal action against them thar libruls and, finally, the three "good" "Christian" advisors to bring him back onto the path of betterosexuality. Notable, reported in the non-gay-blog, non-alternative papers and comparable to several others of these christianists when they get caught.

I've also, finally, understood the distinction some editors are making here between "gay" and "homosexual". The political correctness silliness didn't quite cover it, but there have been several learned comments in the "proper" press lately about how christianists deny all scientific findings when they don't like them: To them, homosexuality is purely chosen behaviour. Nobody is really "gay", it is a personal choice because we are all "truly" heterosexual.

In other words, the temptation of gay sex is so enormous, the fallen nature can not resist it.

Total bull, but I suppose people who until recently were fighting human status for Negroes and still believe the world is 6,000 years old have no problem with cafeteria science. I'd like to see a suitable analysis on that from somebody who is notable enough the christianists can't strip it out.Panthera germanicus (talk) 10:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for the poor indentation. One thing which really bothers me in these discussions and which I think is important to pay attention to the the "Christian" aspect. I am gay, I am a Christian. Dr. Rekers is also a Christian. Thus, not all Christians are the same. I make the distinction on this discussion page with "Christian versus christianist" but really would appreciate it if, in the article, nobody writes it so as to appear that all "Christians" are the same in our beliefs on human status of gays. We aren't.Panthera germanicus (talk) 10:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

This quote here, from Christianity Today http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/mayweb-only/29-32.0.html I find particularly interesting:

• "I confessed to the Lord and to my family that I was unwise and wrong to hire this travel assistant after knowing him only one month before the trip and not knowing whether he was more than a person raised in a Christian home,"

How are we supposed to read this? With his interest in young people, why did Focus on the Family drop him when they merged with the Family Research Council? The relationship with Gio borders on pederasty. So, here he is conducting himself in a way that in his own mind is not gay, as there is no kissing or intercourse, and sticks to the rules which seems to include sexual massage (according to Gio). What he repents of is not what happened, but choosing the wrong sort of person to do this with. The right sort of young man, from what he says, would have been "raised in a Christian home" (and no "more" than that). I get a very uncomfortable feeling about that comment - it evokes images of the right sort of young person to go on holiday with and recieve sexual massage from being brought up in a Christian home, and groomed to the limits of what is sexually/spiritually/literally acceptable, and to keep silent about it? I can't help wondering whether there is a bigger story here than just a hypocritite who uses a rent-boy. Has anybody scratched a bit deeper below the surface of this story? Maybe we will never know for certain if this was the tip of an iceberg, or what the nature of that iceberg would be, but given his "sin" was in choosing the wrong type of companion, and his chums still seem to have dropped him like a ton of bricks, and how advocates for him seem to have vanished from here in the past few days, it does make me wonder. Hopefully, more will become available when/if he does sue the entire gay community and media around the world for defamation (he won't) - and until then it would be unwise to speculate.Mish (talk) 11:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

This passage: "Rekers credits himself for developing a method of assessing gender behaviour in children's play in 1972;[18] this system is still utilised today, and Rekers is cited in this context by leading clinicians like Kenneth Zucker in the USA and Canada,[19] and Domenico diCeglie in the UK,[20] who use his system of assessment."

Who says they are "leading"? By whose criteria have the been deemed "leading"? I mean, apart from the heteronormative, christianists, of course. I'd like a thorough explanation of just why Zucker and di Ceglie are in the article to begin with and why "leading".

I have not edited yet because of my firm belief that it is better to leave things be until the dust settles. But I am not going to just sit here and let people POV the article to advance the hateful agenda of the gay and transgender bashing christianists. I'll wait patiently a bit for an explanation here then up goes the violation of neutrality template to warn young children and their parents of an something which is highly controversial, not based on anything but christianist bull and frequently causes suicide in young people.Panthera germanicus (talk) 12:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Mish, Haggard threw up similar smoke screens regarding that hunk of a hunk of manly man he was, um, er, "seeing". Yes, "seeing". His excuse was his drug addiction and the guy was his candy-man, er, um, source and well, he just, um, not in a gay, way, sort of just slipped and fell into the guy. So to speak.

Christianists have a major problem. They pick and choose science to fit their needs. They pick and choose biblical verses to fit their political (read $$$) goals. When confronted with the immutable characteristic of being gay, they either seek refuge in the bull about "no gene found, so not real" which is about on the same level of comprehension as their 18th century views of natural selection or they do the whole "gay sex is so tempting, our fallen nature makes it inevitable we fall" thing-y.

Totally sick and completely unbelievable to anyone except another christianist. This also explains their exclusive focus on anal intercourse as being the be-all and end-all of "gayness". They don't want to acknowledge the truth, that our love is just as valid as that of heterosexuals, so they reduce us to a pure sex act.

What this says of their opinion of women, I won't go into, but if you look at their hatefilled comments on us wanting to destroy marriage (by seeking marriage rights and responsibilities) our hatred of the family (by adopting children), etc. this is always the basis.

If their hatred didn't affect the rest of us, my sole concern here would be the damage to Geo. Since it does, I strongly feel we must document every verifiable aspect of this. There's some very good analysis of this by Timothy Noah over on boxturtlebulletin. Of course, since that's, gasp!, only a "gay blog" we wouldn't want to integrate it, now would we.Panthera germanicus (talk) 12:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Zucker is pretty straightforward. Whether you like him or not, he is probably the most published current clinical psychologist working in childhood trans and intersex gender identity, is keynote speaker at conferences in the USA and Europe, and has a direct effect on children's lives through his role in the APA DSM committees. Because no only person in this field has a comparable opposition movement campaigning against him, then it is hard to see how else you would describe him. As for DiCelglie, well, I know of nobody else who occupies a more senior role in this area, in this country. If you are concerned that 'leading' suggests a certain positive attitude, by all means change to 'most notable', that is totally uncontroversial. I'm not clear that the people you describe have any particular brief for Zucker or DiCeglie; if they do, it is the first I have heard it. I would be surprised, given the APA's opposition to conversion therapy, and the NHS being Ceglie's employer as a secular state health service - he totally opposed to conversion therapy, and is Jewish (secular, I believe). Again, if you know of more notable clinical psychologists working on childhood gender identity, and who do not cite Rekers, then do say. Mish (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

On the second point, I think you missed my point; although it was stated in an oblique way for obvious reasons. Mish (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. The 'christianist' comment is a bit tedious after a while, BTW, especially when I've not noticed the sorts of edits you talk about for several days now.Mish (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

On second thoughts, this question of NPOV demonstrates a profound ignorance of the subject - I have replaced 'leading' with text from Kenneth Zucker's BLP. No point re-inventing the wheel here. Go and argue this out on his article if you think that is not neutral. There his expertise and authority is well documented, as well as his work with the APA. You refer to BoxTurtle, well, this what this says about Ken: [2]

• Kenneth J. Zucker, Ph.D., C.Psych., the Chair of the DSM-V Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders work group, is a widely respected and pre-eminent scholar in the world of academic sexology research.

• Dr. Zucker has published 97 peer-reviewed journal articles, 48 book chapters, and a landmark textbook. His published work addresses psychosexual differentiation and its disorders, based on a wide range of empirical research studies on children and adolescents with gender identity disorder, with a focus on diagnosis and assessment, and their associated behavioral and psychological distress. As the current Editor of Archives of Sexual Behavior, the premier human sexuality research journal, he also has a wide familiarity with the disparate areas of sexual dysfunctions and paraphilias.

• Dr. Zucker’s therapeutic approach has no relationship to so-called reparative or sexual conversion therapies that attempt to change homosexual orientations to heterosexual ones. The goal of his therapy is the opposite of conversion therapy in that he considers well-adjusted transsexual, gay, lesbian or bisexual youth to be therapy successes, not failures.

So, 'PG' using your own preferred source, your bad-faith POV assertion is clearly unfounded. That doesn't mean that trans people (and some intersex people) are not unhappy with him being as important as he is - but their dissatisfaction makes him no less significant an authority. Mish (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

MishMich, I have no problem at all with the changes you have made to that section. I only think they weren't necessary as a response to the other editor's concerns: his complaint was rooted largely in an accusation against the "POV" of the editor who wrote that portion (you -- though he clearly didn't know it was you). It's worth noting that that editor has been temporarily blocked for disruptive editing ([3]). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Mish, I appreciate your changes.Panthera germanicus (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

This is what I don't get about his resignation: He said he needed time to devote to his defense, while the organization said they hadn't had contact with him for 10 years. So, how much of his time was actually devoted to sitting on the Board of Directors? Are there minutes? I mean, if you have time constraints (which is Reker's "official story"), you don't have to quit something you only give a few hours a year (or even a month) to.Codenamemary (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you confusing NARTH with the Family Research Council? I think the latter made the 10 year comment.--Milowent (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, FRC - no contact for 10 years, NARTH - resigned to take time out for defense.Mish (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am probably confusing the 2. (I'm VERY well versed on Jane Eyre, though.)Codenamemary (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Integrating Reports of Beating Children

OK, not bloviating or avoiding editing - this has been an ongoing question on this topic from the beginning: Do we count MiamiNewTimes as a valid source or not? The question arises because of this article: http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2010/05/before_he_hired_an_escort_reke.php I would very much like to incorporate as much as possible on both incidents. A man whose work causes suicide attempts and involves beating kids to make them conform to conservative Christian notions of behavior (heteronormative male and female behavior) should not be listed as a source for notable psychologist working in the field without explaining the background of his work: Beat young children until they conform.Panthera germanicus (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

This seems to me to be very important material regarding what Rekers' research and methods consisted of. The Miami New Times has at least medium credibility, though I'd like to dig up more sources about his methods to confirm if possible. The book Gender Shock is referenced as a source, and it seems to be a notable book, having gotten some major coverage, e.g., [4] (JAMA review 1997); [5] (LA Times book review, 1996). Note that the 2001 article in Brain Child magazine referenced by the New Times is available here[6], and refers in detail to Burke. That article also mentions that Rekers is the "the same man who declared Susan Smith sane" (he also wrote a book[7] about Susan Smith as well), which is not mentioned in the current article and should probably be mentioned. (Also, one might peruse the insightful review of one of rekers' other books here, for humour only).--Milowent (talk) 13:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Good review, would get them blocked and banned here for a first infringement. Let's see what else turns up then integrate it - don't wait for me if you have it. I'm very clumsy at the editing process and slow.

As a childhood victim of one of these "Christian" psychologists, I'm anything but sympathetic to this man's debunked theories. Hmm, DSM V isn't officil yet, but we ought to link to that on the matter, too.Panthera germanicus (talk) 13:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no issues about the source myself, however, I do have the book referred to in the report if that is of any use.

In the book refered to in the report, Burke says that from the 1970s, NIMH awarded at least $1.5 million for work with 'feminine boys' to UCLA, State University of New York, the Roosevelt Institute (NY), and two organisations of which Reker's was listed as the principle investigator: Fuller Theological Seminary and the Logos Reasearch Institute. Rekers has claimed he received over $0.5 million from NIMH for research and treatment of childhood gender problems; one example is $96,000 in 1976 to the Fuller Theological Seminary for his work in "behavioural treatment of childhood gender problems". The largest experiments funded by the US government were at UCLA in the 1970s under Richard Green (sexologist), George Rekers and O. Ivar Lovaas, known as the "Feminine Boy Project". (summarised from Phyllis Burke, Gender Shock, Anchor Books; New York, London & Toronto, 1996; p.32-33.) I have this book, so anything you need from this, I can look it up. I have read Green's book on the UCLA project, and should have some excerpts filed away somewhere.

Another interesting book is "Sissies & Tomboys", edited by Matthew Rottneck. In the chapter "Gender-Dysphoric Children and Adolescents", Richard Pleak discusses the behaviour modification treatment of gender-dysphoric children in the 1970s; he says that the reports were primarily by George Rekers, such as the first report by Rekers and Lovaas in 1974. This paper describes "treatment focusing on reinforcing masculine behaviours and extinguishing feminine behaviours" (p.39) The approach of punishing cross-gender behaviour at a time when some people advocated androgynous rearing to combat sexism was criticised, and Rekers modified the description as "reinforcement of masculine behaviours" (p.40). In the late 1970s, people began to suspect that Rekers was also using religious persuasion in treating such children, and that he had an "extremist religious bias against homosexuality", after which time the critical debate diminished. He regarded homosexuality as a perversion, transvestism, transsexuality and some forms of homosexuality as sexual deviations. He claimed that his methods were effective in preventing homosexuality, despite the absence of any evidence to support his claims. These claims were made after the APA had removed homosexuality from the DSM. He has persisted in his approach that argues for the treatment of children in a context where homosexuality and transsexualism are seen as patholgies. Despite this, he was still managing to publish under a major medical publishing house in the 1990s.Mish (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Mish, to the extent the excel worksheet I use instead of a heart is capable of it, my sincere gratitude. That was precisely the period of time when I'd attend one graduate seminar on abnormal psych. and the prof. would speak about children who were raised in non-traditional homes having lower incidents of substance abuse as adults then attend another lecture at which the prof. would assure us that gender roles were one of the few social phenotypes with direct chromosomal expression...or some such nonsense, even then I just put my brain in neutral and looked at the blinking lights.

Yes, if we could integrate your book that would be cool.Panthera germanicus (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Undo from 17:19, May 17 I was just undoing this when Nomoskedasticity beat me to it. My objection was lack of adequate sourcing, not the "sordid details". On the contrary, were this to be adequately source, I should welcome the material as fully appropriate to the text. Panthera germanicus (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

On page 37, Burke, after describing how Green procured Kraig (4 years old) as the first child Rekers and Lovaas would experiment on, summarises their treatment rationale:

• Kraig would be scorned by his/her peers, and it is easier to change the child than society.
• Kraig was at risk in adulthood of transvestism, transsexualism, or some form of gender-nonconforming homosexuality.
• As an adult, Kraig risked depression, arrest, trial and imprisonment as a transsexual, and self-mutilation (such as autcastration/autpenectomy).

This latter prognosis was made despite Kraig having expressed no distress about his physical phenotype, only social gender role (expressed as not wanting to die in Vietnam) and preference for playing with girls.

p.38-44:

Through the behavioural modification (a carrot & stick approach: rewards for masculine behaviour, punishment for feminine behaviour), Rekers & Lovaas claimed that Kraig was cured. Burke, however, suggests that his preferences were driven 'underground', while he verbalised and acted out a preference for male-typical toys in order to avoid punishment, which included spanking by his father under the direction of the instructors. Rekers followed up Kraig's case, and dismissed concerns about his developing delinquency, and ignored his growing apart from his father (emphasising the opposite). Ten years later, while Rekers still presented Kraig as the 'poster-child' for behavioural treatment of femininity in boys, Green's follow-up suggested a different scenario; terrified of his sexuality, of having long hair, appearing at all feminine, and of any advance by a man (which could elicit feelings of physical violence). At eighteen, when he began to question his sexuality, he tried to kill himself. His interviews indicated an overriding sense of shame about everything to do with UCLA, his gendered play, and his sexuality. Despite this, Green still concluded that none of the children in the experiemnet were harmed by their participation. Rekers still used Kraig to illustrate the treatment model in his 1995 handbook for pediatricians; however, he modifies the history to fit concerns about transsexualism, rather than homosexuality.

p.47:

Lovaas has since distanced himself from Rekers' work with feminine boys, saying he was on the committee that evaluated Rekers' work, who was a junior assistant professor (despite Lovaas being lsited as the Principle Investigator). Lovaas insists that the spankings were at the parents' instigation, not the instructors. The reports at NIMH, and Rekers' studies, explain that the children's genitals were examined (alongside other tests) to rule out anatomical differences in feminine boys; Lovaas denies that this happened, or knowledge of who would have carried out these examinations.Mish (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Such a delightful man. Brings back memories. Yuk. So, yeah, I think this is much better than just the MiamiNews source. Can you put it in? ThanksPanthera germanicus (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Miami New Times is a valid source. I don't know if I'm using the correct publishing terminology, but it's a subsidary (or part of the same syndicate) as The Village Voice, under the agis of the same general editor. Teresa Carpenter won a Pulitzer Prize writing for The Village Voice. (Vol. XXX No. 45) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codenamemary (talk • contribs) 18:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to work on adding these book sources if someone could pdf me the relevant book pages (which I will delete after using them). Email me via my talk page if that would be helpful. The "scholarly work" section of the article is where the expansion should take place.--Milowent (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I only have hard copy (books). The above is a precis of text. I have inserted relevant page numbers. Kraig was not the only boy mentioned, but his case is the best documented (and in Rekers' estimation the most severe). There is also discussion of Brenda, a girl who featured in the experiments. The more I read into this, considering the notability of the investigators involved, I'm beginning to wonder whether this needs to be an article in its own right? Mish (talk) 18:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

We have Gender identity disorder in children, which might merit expansion too.--Milowent (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Green's BLP has barely a mention of the sissy-boy project. Mish (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting what the GIDC article says about Zucker - this could be built up as history, covering Green, Rekers, Lovaas & ultimately Zucker - although I suspect that its insertion will be resisted by at least one editor. Need access to Green's & Rekers' respective writings on this, as well as some of Zucker's papers that discuss Rekers' & Green's work. Most of what I have in this area relates to adult GID & adult conversion therapy. Mish (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Rekers is listed at imdb

He appeared on a 2004 episode of "American Justice" called The Susan Smith Story: A Mother's Confession because he authored the 1997 book Susan Smith: Victim or Murderer. Amazon.com mentions he's "the clinical psychologist who served as the designated spokesperson for the University of South Carolina School of Medicine, where Smith had her mental evaluation." So this is why he ended up being interviewed for the A&E show. I wonder if the main article should have a link to this, at some point. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2660878/board/threads/ Codenamemary (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

New York Times mention

Drama critic Frank Rich has a piece up, "A Heaven-Sent Rent Boy": http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/opinion/16rich.html?hp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codenamemary (talk • contribs) 21:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I note that another editor has added some text from that excellent commentary.

Mish, I agree that Dr. Rekers has had an influence on the work of many psychologists working in the field of gender studies. My sole concern is that the article be NPOV. After being blocked and threatened with indefinite ban the moment I first raised objections (of course there no possible connection between the two, oh no) I am very much working under the assumption that some editors - not you - will indeed try to cast things in a very NOPV light. Any questions I put, any doubts I may have arise from that basis.Panthera germanicus (talk) 11:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I am showing my age! To clarify, Frank Rich made his name as the drama critic for the New York Times, but switched to writing about politics years ago.Codenamemary (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

American College of Pediatricians

Added comment by Director of NIH on this group. For a civil servant in his position, this is about as nasty a statement as one can imagine. I am so not good at edits (which is why I used to ask for help on discussion pages), so if anybody can clean up the footnote I'd be much obliged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panthera germanicus (talk • contribs) 12:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you AV3000! On a good day, I can just barely manage to turn on the computer without it blowing up or the printer spewing pages. Bad days are when I have to drag it out from where it's hiding under the sofa.Panthera germanicus (talk) 16:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Very important details

you have one of the leading and prominent anti-homosexuals in the country, a doctor who has written extensively on the subject who is caught with a "rent-a-boy" Rekers claims all he was doing was carrying his luggage, yet the rent-a-boy claims " according to one report "Rekers allegedly named his favorite maneuver the "long stroke" -- a complicated caress "across his penis, thigh... and his anus over the butt cheeks," as the escort puts it. "Rekers liked to be rubbed down there," he says" and those details keep getting deleted from the article. these are not sorid details, they are vital ones and lend balance to the allegations. That quote is well sourced and provide the reader some insight into the allegations. please stop deleting this information.

More the previous entry only stated that Rekers got a naked massage daily, well most ALL massages are naked, you wear a towel or something. THAT is why I keep adding those details, so the reader will understand this was not a typical "naked" massage. I get massages, my wife gets them, we are always naked (but covered with a towel) so it's important to distinguish what is being portrayed.

I fully agree with you that an exact description is important. What matters to me, however, is that it be adequately sourced. I have no problem with an exact description - in fact, without it we are left with an "upstanding Christian Dr." and a "rentboy" and "a massage." A-ha. A "massage". Right. Tell the truth and shame the devil doesn't work here. It's "verifiable" that counts. Oh, please do sign your entries - there are some here who have raised "bite the newbies" to a new art.Panthera germanicus (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Long stroke definition. I notice it is back in. I expect it will be removed as soon as a certain editor sees it. Again. May I humbly suggest that this time, we all talk about it? Easy for me to say, I'll be off-line the next days, but for what my thoughts are worth - I think it is valid and at least as worthy of being mentioned as all the "context" about Dr. Rekers "Christian" beliefs.Panthera germanicus (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If the article says "massage" without explanation, many readers will assume its a euphemism for gay sex. It would be a misrepresentation of what really happened.--Milowent (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, that is why - properly sourced - I think a description should be in there. I've given massages to straight male friends and I've had massages from straight male friends and I can't ever recall us doing anything which we would have not wanted our parents or church to see...but that is subjective. I'm gay, so obviously my opinion is not going to be that of a heterosexual man. If, however, we know that the massage included stroking the guy's external male genitalia, well, then, that is beyond discussion. Actually, put that way it sounds really nasty. Pity Geo didn't phrase it that way. Have to go with what's verifiable, not the "truth", though.Panthera germanicus (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This misrepresents what the text says. It does not say the massage was naked, it says (and has for some time now) "naked sexual massage". That seems sufficient to clarify it was more than just a massage, according to the masseur. My own view is that if we are going to include Reker's statement about how he witnessed about Jesus Christ on several occasions during their vacation together, and the companion states there was a specific form of massage, then NPOV suggests we give equal weight to both versions. However, if we omit the prominence given to Rekers' denial of any 'impropriety', such as his assertion that he was proselytising, then we don't need to go into detail about 'the other side of the story', just that he denies anything like that happened, while the other party says there was sexual massage. There has to be parity, as both sources are equally reliable as far as we are aware. Mish (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I will continue to remove that passage until there is consensus for its inclusion. Mish, I'm glad you pointed out the details of the current version: in fact, the source provided does not say that the massage was sexual (only that it was nude), so I will take that out as well. Let's be clear on the fact that there is only one source for this claim as well -- the "Raw Story" source simply quotes at length the article from the Miami New Times, and the CNN video doesn't say anything about the details of where he was touched or even that the massage was naked. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I want it included. Properly sourced, properly titled, but included. I have no idea what the next step is to attain "consensus", but suggest it be taken. I will be traveling the next days and probably off-line, so am entering my thoughts on the matter here. This is not bloviating or personal feelings, this is directly relevant to establishing consensus: I totally agree with Mish' assessment above that, if we are going to include all the "Christian" motivations for Dr. Reker, it is only NPOV to include the specifics on his "massage". So, strong keep. In fact, until we reach consensus, I think it should go back in. Only not putting it back in to avoid a war.Panthera germanicus (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I am also going to request a neutrality disputed label on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panthera germanicus (talk • contribs) 21:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Filed a "request for editor assistance" appears to be the "assume good faith" approach. We shall see. If I get blocked for it on procedural grounds, we will know just what good faith is worth on this article. Again, as I probably won't be on-line the next few days, I am very strongly in favor of including the details of the massage. Frankly, we can split hairs about what is and what is not sexual to a conservative Christian when he's been caught with his pants down...but in my book, when one guy strokes another guys genitalia to erection, it's sexual and belongs in the article.Panthera germanicus (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I have put a quote from the PinkPaper (UK) that explains what Jo-Vanni has said to various media outlets in accurate but not explicit terms. I have inserted this. If this gets removed, then neutrality insists that I have to remove Rekers' own assertions about what happened. Otherwise we introduce bias by preferencing his version of events. Mish (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Mish. It's not quite as descriptive as the original entry (which I would have preferred, had the source been more satisfactory. But it certainly leaves no doubt in anyone's mind that, yes, it was sex. And that is what counts. If this is the "consensus" solution - and if it be left alone - then, if the original editor is OK with it, I am in agreement. Should he desire a more detailed listing (with appropriate sourcing), then I feel we should comply. There has to be some point in this process where editing consists of more than undoing, threatening to constantly undo and having people blocked with whom one is displeased.Panthera germanicus (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please cut and paste the proposed substitution here? I can't figure out how to compare and contrast all the different versions. I do agree that whatever is used, it should be quite detailed, as Dr. Rekers is quoted in detail as to what his version of the events of the trip were.Codenamemary (talk) 22:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Codenamemary, I will try:

"'Jo-vanni in news reports, has told various media outlets that he gave Rekers daily massages in the nude during the trip, which included genital touching." He also talked about how he believed that Rekers was, in fact, homosexual:

I hope that is right. If not, hopefully somebody will correct it.Panthera germanicus (talk) 23:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Originally it said massage, then somebody wanted to insert what Jo-Vanni said the massage consisted of, this was edit-warred over a bit, so I replaced 'nude massage' with text about naked massage that included genital touching. That was also removed, so I replaced simply with 'naked sexual massage'. That went unchallenged for several days, then somebody tried to put back what Jo-Vanni said about the massage again. The edit war resumed, with Nomoskedasticity reverting that to 'naked sexual massage' whenever it was inserted. Then there was a challenge to Nomoskedasticity's removal of details about Jo-Vanni's statement, and I pointed out that the text had not said 'naked massage', but had said 'naked sexual massage' for some time. Then Nomoskedasticity deleted that, and replaced it with 'nude massage' on the basis that is what the source said. Naked vs. nude is trivial - we do not have to use the precise wording, just words that mean the same. My only reason for putting 'sexual massage' was because Jo-Vanni's statement was being censored out, and when I tried to be more accurate, that was removed as well. So, I went back to sources, and located the UK's PinkPaper which does not go into explicit details, but does talk about naked massage that included genital massage (remarkably similar to an earlier edit of mine, but which was removed). So, I inserted "'Jo-vanni' in news reports, has told various media outlets that he gave Rekers daily massages in the nude during the trip, which included genital touching." as a quote, so that the wording would not be quibbled over, and which seems most accurately to describe what he said without explicit details.

My concern is that if we give one party's comments about what happened priority over another's, then that inserts bias, and potentially prejudices our treatment of the matter. So, if we are not going to allow this, some equivalent comment by Rekers needs to go as well - such as his claim to have spent time witnessing the Gospel. I personally think the challenge to NewTimes as a source is bogus anyway, but have sought to find other reliable sources where possible. I think we need to challenge this maneuver. It started with a challenge to the original source, then reliable sources that referred to the original source were challenged because they were repeating the original sources, until the story became so well documented that could not be sustained. These seem like strategies to keep controversial material out, and I appreciate that it is important to ensure we deal with controversial material as cautiously and conservatively as possible. However, when what has been written has been repeated and discussed around the world in mainstream newspapers, TV news and chat shows, the gay press, it seems a bit daft trying to censor it here really. So, I would suggest to whoever thinks that the original source should still be excluded, that they provide a rationale take it to appropriate board for confirmation - because I can find no indication on the noticeboard that the New Times Media is not a reliable source. In the case of Village Voice, which merged with New Times media, the view seems to be that they are reliable, but because their reports can be controversial, it is wise to ensure that there are other sources that state something similar to their reports. I think we have bent over backwards to accommodate that concern, and now we should just ignore these strategic challenges, and state quite bluntly that if somebody wants to keep challenging this, they need to take New Times Media to the reliable sources noticeboard. If they do so, that should not be done in the way that this page was taken to another board earlier - they need to notify people here about it, providing a link, so they can participate in the discussion there. Discussion about New Times' validity as a source should not be discussed here any further, it should be discussed there. Notification should also be made on pojects or pages that a particularly relevant (such as New Times Media). Resolving this matter would go some way to avoiding edit warring on this matter. If they do not do this, or point to some former advice about New Times Media, then I feel there is no case for continuing to exclude such material. Mish (talk) 11:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

As a side-note, the advice on blogs mainly applies to personal and group blogs, news blogs are acceptable. The criterion is to do with whether the blog is part of an organisation (such as a newspaper), or is self-publication. Self-published blogs are not acceptable.Mish (talk) 11:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

As I indicated, I think the current version is fine. I'm not disputing the reliability of the Miami New Times; I have no doubt that a thread on RSN would produce support for it. A more appropriate venue would be BLPN, in my view. I would also like to suggest that discussions here try to maintain some perspective in relation to my own contributions: I pushed very hard against our friend Off2riorob, and in part via my own contributions this article now looks quite different from what he would prefer. I do not consider myself an enemy of the other editors on this page and I don't think I should be perceived as such; among the editors currently participating here, there is not really a great deal of divergence of positions. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this. Firstly, this article has already been raised at BLPN. WP:RS is featured within WP:BLP, and while BLP policy may require more stringent application of RS guidelines, it does not trump RS. The correct place to discuss this is WP:RS/N, and if the material garnered from a source that is considered reliable and is accurate and verfiable, then there is no reason why it needs to be excluded - provided it is not given undue weight against other sources that state something different. I think what is there now (or was last time I looked) is sufficient for the time being. Mish (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, we are making a major concession by not including the full details about the massage...the anal and butt-cheek carressing bits. (These body parts are not "genitals".) I think the only rationale for leaving them out is because we don't want to go back and forth over it for the next 5 years. So, if that's the most expedient way to go, that's okay, I GUESS. Codenamemary (talk) 18:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

UK or US English?

Don't want to step on any toes, not bloviating or being disruptive here. Definitely something better to ask first rather than just to change given the enormous fights one finds on the subject elsewhere on Wikepedia. The article begins in US English, Dr. Rekers is an American. Obviously, cited text remains in the variant of original composition. Several words in our edited text, however, appear in both variations. Should we harmonize them to one version? I don't care, personally, would, however, suppose US English to be preferable.Panthera germanicus (talk) 11:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't write in US English, mainly because I was educated in British English, which to me is the correct English, obviously. I appreciate that Wikipedia is US English in origin, and in articles where Indian English is the norm I'd never seek to impose my English on those editors, although I can only write in British English. This article is about the US, so it wouldn't be unreasonable to suggest it should be in US English. In US vs British English, the main difference is spelling. We spell paedophile where they spell pedophile, for example. So, I will continue to write in my native language, but if anybody wants to change the spelling to reflect US English, I won't get precious about it. Mish (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Mish, I'd suggest, once things are more or less settled, that we run the text through a spelling checker and everything which is not a direct citation then be spelled in one variation. I just noticed it while checking my own modest edits to clean them up as best I could.

Once this article is more or less in shape, I think I will probably take a course in working on the encyclopedia before I do anything else. I can't remember a nastier working environment anywhere in my life. It looks as though Florida might end up in a law suit because of Dr. Reker's charges for testifying. Should that come to be, I don't see how to incorporate it into the current structure - it is already too chaotic for what's there now.Panthera germanicus (talk) 17:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we can all take a correspondence course together?? I know it's tough, insulting and time-consuming collaborating with some editors (which is why I don't do more), but you've made great contributions. Maybe you can just stick with this one article and not branch out...and that would be managable. I like your idea of adding more and helping to keep an eye on things here.Codenamemary (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The subject is American, hence the article should be in American English. Jim Michael (talk) 13:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Quick q about discussion

Hi, a while back, I made a quick comment on the discussion page that this sentence (or a variant of it) may not have been as neutral as intended:

"According to the New Times, he made it clear that he had met Rekers through Rentboy.com and denied that he had been hired to carry luggage.[56] Dan Savage, of the column, Savage Love has suggested that "whatever lifts your luggage" replace the phrase "whatever floats your boat", in reference to George Rekers's statement that he used a male prostitute to lift his luggage."

My point was just that, saying the rent boy 'made it clear that he had met Rekers though Rentboy.com' sounds like the Rentboy settled the issue; that he perhaps offered some sort of evidence which put the issue to bed. I would just suggest that there is a difference between, say, "Nixon made it clear that he did nothing illegal," and "Nixon made it clear he thought he had done nothing illegal."

Now I'm not here claiming that this is correct, but my original post seems to have been removed from the discussion page. Is this because it was so obviously erroneous? If so, could someone please explain to me how? I'd be happy just to know what other posters thought was so wrong about it that a response could not be left on the discussion page. I'd just not like to make similar mistakes in future.

Thank you all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.146.36 (talk) 10:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Older discussions get archived: you can find your post here. It sounds like I need to slow down the archiving... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that because of the amount of discussion generated, the archiving interval is fine. If there is an active discussion, and the discussion appears to peter out, most assume it has been resolved. If somebody decides to resume the discussion some time later, after there have been further edits, then it is a new discussion, and people are free to refer back to the archive discussion if they wish to avoid repeating themselves.

I agree that if we are giving place to Jo-Vanni's version of events, and Rekers asserts a different version, then we need to ensure there is parity, as BLP policy applies to both people here. I have placed a source that points to Rekers' denial, as well as a quote from The Times of London that states that Rekers hired him from Rentboy.com. As yet, The Times has not retracted this, and they are one of the most reliable sources in the encyclopedia. They state that is where he got the assistant, not that this is a claim. You will also note that what Rekers actually says is not a denial that he used Rentboy.com - it is carefully worded - he denies hiring a prostitute through Rentboy.com, but he says nothing about whether he hired Jo-Vanni, or a travel assistant through Rentboy.com, just that he was unaware until later that Jo-Vanni was a prostitute. However plausible (or not) one might think this is, he is not denying he used Rentboy.com at all, just that he denies hiring somebody as a prostitute through Rentboy.com. I am not clear anybody has alleged he hired him as a prostitute either - just that he hired him, and he is available through Rentboy.com - and that Jo-Vanni states that he was hired by him through Rentboy.com. Given all this, I don't see what the problem is with including it. Mish (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. The editor who was resisting this is no longer active on this article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Your analogy doesn't really hold up. Nixon may have believed that his sanctioning breaking and entering was not illegal, when history shows he was wrong in that - that even a President sanctioning illegal activity was acting illegally; however, he would have known whether he sanctioned breaking and entering or not, even if he thought it was not illegal for him to do so. In this situation, Jo-Vanni would not have thought he had been hired through Rentboy.com, he would have known this - what he thought he was being hired for may be open to doubt, but if he says he was hired through Rentboy.com, then either he is correct, or he is lying, or he was deceived into believing that Rekers was hiring him through Rentboy.com, when actually, Rekers just happened to have gained access to his details some other way. The last option takes us into a realm of speculation and conspiracy way too esoteric for us to even consider - so, either he is lying or saying what happened. Until these two sort out their relationship (either between each other, or in court), we have no way of knowing whether it is Jo-Vanni or Rekers who has a poor grasp of the facts in their situation; in either case, what Jo-Vanni says is that he was hired through Rentboy.com, not that he thought he was hired this way. Whether he is correct or not, that is what we reflect, not some synthesis that suggests his statement indicates some uncertainty on his part. Mish (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for all that; I didn't realise discussion pages got archived under these circumstances -- thanks for clearing that up.

As for the actual detail of my comment, I'm not that bothered, it was a minor point, and I certainly won't be pushing it, but I will just clarify it because I think it has been taken wrongly: I was merely saying that the use of the phrase 'made it clear' made it sound like the rent-boy's word put paid to the issue (irrespective of whether it clashes with sourced quotes from Rekers).

My comment was not questioning the reliability of the Times: I am happy for the wikiarticle to say that the rent-boy was hired through rentboy.com, if the Times reported this. I am happy for the wikiarticle to say that the rentboy says he was hired from rentboy.com, if the Times reported he said that. My issue is with concluding too much from what the rentboy said -- it's kind of like (in a more extreme sense) saying "According the the New York Times, the rent-boy proved he had been hired through rent-boy.com" (where the rent-boy merely claimed it).

As for my example not holding up, I disagree, but we can simply use another example instead: I think there is a difference between saying "Nixon made it clear that he did not sanction breaking and entering" and "Nixon claimed he did not sanction breaking and entering" (where, in the wikiarticle, the first is being used, but is justified solely by the second). But I want you to know that I am not asking for a revision, it is a minor point to say the least -- it was just something that occurred to me while I was reading it and I thought, "Oh, that's a bit unfair." Not that he doesn't deserve the unfairness -- but not that he does, either.203.45.146.36 (talk) 06:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, I've just seen the original response to my original post, and that seems fair. If the times reported that the rent-boy's word made x clear, or proved x, or whatever, then it's fair to report that the Times says the rent-boy's word made x clear, or proved x, or whatever. I still think unjusified conclusions are being drawn, but it is the Times doing that, not wikipedia. I can only note that, for some reason, the source material seems to in some way glide over the use of the term 'made it clear' in a way that the wikiarticle doesn't seem to do -- but that is not something I can put my finger on, and if no-one else can either then I think it's fine that the article be left as is. Sorry for bothering everyone.203.45.146.36 (talk) 06:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I have just checked the source, and Jo-Vanni says nothing about rentboy.com in that report of the interview. I have removed this, and it should only be re-inserted if it has a source with him stating this. I agree that 'he made clear' is problematic (I see what you mean now); that assumes he is correct. It should simply report what was stated in the article (which made clear these were allegations, although there was no mention about Rentboy.com). The wording about hiring and rentboy.com needs to be chained as closely to the sources as possible. Mish (talk) 08:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, hey, thanks for that; yeah that's exactly all I meant, that the wording was coming across a little different than I think was intended. Sorry for originally making it sound like a rehash of the Off2riorob debate. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 01:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations, Nomoskedasticity and Sandstein. Because of you two, I have left Wikipedia as an editor forever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panthera germanicus (talk • contribs) 17:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear! Don't go :( wikipedia IS often a kind of horrible place...but then, the world and the people we have to interact with in it are often horrible, and this is just a microchosim (sp?) of that. Oh dear dear dear. You've given good things to this article, and discussion page. 69.198.205.2 (talk) 00:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Lead

Just leaving a note here to say that I removed some material from the lead that looked as though it was very poorly sourced. I can see some better sources for the same material deeper in the article, but I don't have time to add them now. I'll do it later or tomorrow if no one else beats me to it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Previous discussions about sources have led to consensus that the sources were fine. In any event, given that you are confident of producing even better sources, there's no need to delete the material; introducing additional sources tomorrow (or whenever) will of course improve the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 01:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Vanishing sources

I note somebody has been editing to manage the disappearing sources. It looks like sites associated with Rekers' are either closing down or taking down relevant pages. If this is to continue, then I am not clear how we manage this. Mish (talk) 08:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You can add the dead-link tag -- but a disappearing link is not a reason to remove the reference. When a newspaper article is used as a source, for example, the link is merely a convenience -- if it goes dead, that does not mean the newspaper article no longer exists. That principle can be generalized. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Linkrot is the policy. The sites in question were IAII.org and TeenSexToday.com, which were Reker's websites. I added a layout screenshot for each of these sites so that users can have some idea of how the sites appeared before they were taken down. Blue Rasberry 16:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I just got a notice from the knowledgeable user:Melesse who has informed me that I may not have been using the screenshots with appropriate respect to the copyright. The relevant criteria are at WP:NFC#UUI; the example is that I have used the screenshots in a way comparable to illustrating a musician's body of work by showing album covers and not having critical commentary about those specific works to go along with the pictures. This rationale is sensible to me; would anyone object to my removing the screenshots which I just added, or do they have value in illustrating the sections in which they appear? Here is the discussion I have been having. Blue Rasberry 02:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to note in the article that these sites are down and also to date when they went down. It would be original research to say that "This site went down on June 4, 2010" would it not? Is there a way that this can be noted without a reliable source reporting it? Blue Rasberry 16:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

In the source the access date is given - a comment could be inserted that stated that the site was taken down before a certain date? Mish (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I used a citation template - can comments be added to templates? It would seem reasonable that the access date could place the date the link died. Hmm... Blue Rasberry 02:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Noteworthiness of these affiliations

Given that there is no secondary sources for these affiliations/activities, and that the primary sources no longer exist, is there any reason to mention these, apparently 'vanity' websites/ministries? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It's no great loss if they are deleted, but I see them as significant elements of his activities in the past. The broken citations aren't reason enough for deletion. Perhaps it can be pared down for mere mention (a statement of the intended goals of the organizations). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

(i) Such advocates create, and abandon, such websites with boring regularity. (ii) Lacking a reliable secondary source discussing them, it is hard to see them as "significant elements of his activities in the past" -- particularly in comparison to his expert witness work, NARTH & the American College of Pediatricians. If they still existed, I'd suggest relegating them to ELs -- as they don't, I'd be in favour of their complete removal. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that these websites should be called "vanity" sites and would ask why they are being called such and what Wikipedia policy suggests either that they were insignificant or that they should be removed for being down regardless of significance. Here are the some guidelines for using self-published autobiographical sources as references; I think that the sources met and still meet WP:RS and that the fact that they are dead links now is irrelevant. The teen sex website and world ministry sites were abandoned when the scandal happened so I would not say that the sites went down because of "boring regularity," but even if that were the case, that I know of no reason why that should be cause for removal. I considered WP:NOT, but am open to considering more reasons.

I would not oppose the sections being re-written or integrated elsewhere, but since the nature of the scandal was that a man who said that homosexual males are unfit to be around youth was himself alleged to be buyer of youth sex work, I think it is significant that he created and maintained with at least monthly updates for years a website to put himself in contact with sexually vulnerable youths. I am aware that there is no identified source stating the significance of this, but still I might suggest that this case has some differences with the common cases about which you are thinking. As for the IAII.org website, it is the personal ministry of a man who devoted his life to using religion in his work. There is a good paragraph in the section of this article about that site and it details the spiritual beliefs of George Rekers and provides a citation for his work with Mark, Steven and Matthew Rekers. All of this is important information for understanding who George Rekers is, and since it all meets Wikipedia criteria for inclusion in the article and since I see no unambiguous Wikipedia policy which would discourage its inclusion, I would want all of this information in the article in some form. Blue Rasberry 17:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOR clearly indicates that secondary sources are preferable to primary sources. WP:SELFPUB source material is even further depreciated. Whilst this policy leaves this issue to "common sense", my common sense tells me that activities that generate neither third party nor secondary source coverage probably aren't noteworthy. This is further supported by the fact that the section contents are simply the sort of boiler-plate that you'd expect from a rightwing talking-head with pretensions of science. It really gives no particular insight into Rekers. It certainly does not (and most likely cannot without WP:OR) tell the reader that "it is significant that he created and maintained with at least monthly updates for years a website to put himself in contact with sexually vulnerable youths" or anything similar. And trying to do so from the simple (prior) existence of these websites has the feel of a WP:COATRACK. I fully agree that Rekers is a sorry individual -- but there's been more than enough secondary source commentary on that view that we shouldn't be putting emphasis on primary source material. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, according to Wayback, the last update to teensextoday appears to have been in June 2009[8] -- well before the scandal. Likewise iaii does not appear to have been updated since March 2008 (and to have been completely defuunct after May of that year)[9]. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't devote significant space to topics that aren't covered in secondary sources. If it were a mere list of "other affiliations" then reliable primary sources might be sufficient, but if we're going to go into detail we need secondary sources.   Will Beback  talk  10:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I basically agree and have reduced it to a minimum. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a good compromise to me. Blue Rasberry 16:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Link-rotten source

http://www.iaii.org/The_IAII_Team.html no longer exists, not on the web, not on WayBack, not anywhere (with the possible exception of Rekers', or his webmaster's harddrive). I have gone through the relevant parts of WP:LINKROT (which is only a how-to, not policy) to attempt to find an alternative URL, but none appears to be available. The source no longer exists in any published form, so is no longer verifiable. Therefore, unless anybody can suggest some other way of finding an alternative URL, per WP:V (which is policy) I am challenging the verifiability of the passage sourced to this broken link. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:LINKROT isn't policy, but it does say what policy here is under WP:V -- a dead link is not reason for removal. Verifiability of the passage is satisfied insofar as the link worked when the material was added, and the fact that the link doesn't work now doesn't mean that the web site never existed. Hence the use of a past-tense verb in the text. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

1. All that WP:LINKROT says about WP:V is "WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published on-line." However WP:V does require that a published source exists (not merely existed at some previous time) somewhere. If an offline published source never existed, and the online punlished source no longer exists, then no published source exists, and the information is no longer verifiable.
2. Further WP:LINKROT merely states "Except for URLs in the External links section that have not been used to support any article content, do not delete a URL solely because the URL does not work any longer. Recovery and repair options and tools are available." I did not "delete a URL solely because the URL does not work any longer" -- I tried the "recovery and repair options and tools" first.
3. WP:V makes no exception for dead or rotten links. WP:LINKROT should therefore be read as a guide for the process of restoring verifiability, not an exception to it allowing indefinite reference solely to a no-longer-existent, unrecoverable URL.
4. WP:V requires that "readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source" -- therefore "verifiability of the passage" is not "satisfied insofar as the link worked when the material was added".

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I have a copy of the website which I downloaded while it was up. We just took down a picture from the website but I could reinsert it into the article. It would be a copyright violation for me to republish the website itself. Is this situation any different from any other book which is out of print? Blue Rasberry 04:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the copy on wikimedia when I was searching for alternatives -- it seems likely that it'll be deleted shortly for lack of sufficient free-use rationale. If it survives, I don't know if it counts as WP:RS -- but don't think its worth arguing about -- but it should be cited, not 'exhibited' inside the article, in any case. A book that is out of print is still accessible to readers via libraries and second-hand dealers, so readers can still "check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source". This would be the equivalent of a book where no known copies exist any longer (a situation existing with many books from antiquity) -- and such are not acceptable as a source. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I downloaded the website when it was up, so that is a known copy. Unless I misunderstand, your answer does not apply to this situation. If the website were from antiquity I suppose I could distribute it without worrying about copyright, but as things are, as a favor I could distribute parts of it as fair use. It is not obvious to me that the passing of WP:V needs to be perpetual. It might be the case that many websites go down over the coming decades and if they passed WP:V at one time I see no Wikipedia imperative to delete research which previously and thoroughly passed community review following WP:V, but I would like to know if this has been discussed before. Where do you want to go with this? The solution which I would seek is either for you to give me more information about why the reference should be removed or otherwise state your support for it remaining for lack of reason to remove it.

I would not object to new sources being applied to the content in the article, and Rekers' association with InterAct International is easy to source. But I see no reason to add another source when the best one is the dead link. Blue Rasberry 23:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

(i) See WP:CITE#Convenience links policy on copies. (In any case I've already explicitly said that I wouldn't mind its use if it survives deletion on Wikimedia.) (ii) You do misunderstand. My point was that the appropriate analogy was NOT "any other book which is out of print", but rather "a book where no known copies exist any longer" -- as NO PUBLISHED COPIES EXIST of this website any longer ("books from antiquity" was only an EXAMPLE of this phenomenon). (iii) Read WP:V again. NOTHING in it suggests that past verifiability is sufficient. The whole policy is written in the present tense ("readers can check" not "readers could have checked"). (iv) It is a dead, unrecoverable primary source, which (even when it existed) did no more than prove its own existence (which means it was probably WP:UNDUE even when it existed). I would suggest that either a WP:SECONDARY source is found (demonstrating that this information is noteworthy, per WP:UNDUE), or that the material be removed (as both WP:UNDUE and unverifiabile). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 01:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Section on American College of Pediatricians

I'm concerned that this section is growing in ways that aren't sufficiently connected to Rekers. Obviously the section itself is relevant. But I think it would be better to create a separate article, as the preferred location for material on that organization itself. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• I read an article last night related to the ACP's so-called fact sheets on GID, and felt it pertinent to add it to the appropriate article. I was not entirely sure that it belonged on Rekers's page, but seeing as this is the only reference to ACP on wikipedia, I figured it to be the best (if only) alternative. However, I do not have sufficient familiarity with the ACP to start an article on the organisation; I figured that this section could be moved to a dedicated article on ACP when the time came. KJBurns (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The time has come: American College of Pediatricians. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

NARTH announcement

The source 'NARTHcomment' is heavily used in this article, and it seems to have disappeared. There were fears something like this might happen[10] and it looks like this contains a copy of it. Several news sources have mentioned the response from NARTH and reprinted some of what it contained. We need to re-source our content to the news sources. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

undue

• Thanks, John, for this and for chipping away at the WP:UNDUE issues in this article. It is very difficult to retain balance when faced with the morally repugnant, I applaud those who are attempting to do so here. We do not need to tell the reader what to conclude about this subject, we can leave that to them. 80.254.146.36 (talk) 12:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I support almost everything you did, except that I reverted your change in the lede of the word "prostitute" to "escort." I feel that "prostitute" is the correct word for clarity and its use in the majority of sources. Blue Rasberry 19:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, especially since the link goes to male prostitute via a redirect. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

"gay male escort" has less innuendo in it, but is more ambiguous. Is there a source which unambiguously says that Lucien is/has been a "male prostitute"? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's the results of searching the Proquest newspaper archive. Virtually all of the entries are reliable sources, though the numbers can be skewed by syndicated columns that appear in multiple papers.

• "gay male escort" 11
• "male escort" (-gay) 17
• "male prostitute" 23
• "gay prostitute" 4
• "rent boy" 11

I checked "male prostitute" and there are several duplicates, so my guess is that all these terms are used more or less interchangeably with no clear preference among newspaper sources. I can provide excerpts from any of the sources, and if anyone can think of other possible terms I can check those too.   Will Beback  talk  00:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

A word search isn't sufficient; currently the intro says Lucien (a living person whose real name is mentioned lower in the article) is/has been a "male prostitute", which is very specific, and needs a reputable source which directly states that he has been a prostitute. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting using those searches as sources, merely to show that no one term is preferred. Here are some excerpts for "male prostitute". I'm not saying it's preferable to any other term, for which sources can also be found:

• ... he was photographed at Miami airport with a male prostitute he had hired to join him on a European holiday.
  • Anti-gay pastor took rent boy on holiday Guy Adams. Belfast Telegraph. Belfast: May 6, 2010. pg. 24
• George Alan Rekers, known as a staunch anti-gay activist who champions "curing" homosexuals, solicited a 20-year-old male hooker ...
  • Outed as hypocrites Emily Ngo. AM New York. New York, N.Y.: May 6, 2010. pg. 3, 1 pgs
• The Miami-based website is so obviously a venue for hiring young male prostitutes that Mr. Rekers' excuse...
  • NEXT TIME, ADOPT A BETTER EXCUSE. Editorial Palm Beach Post. West Palm Beach, Fla.: May 9, 2010. pg. A.18
• The Attorney General in Florida paid him at least $60,900 (41,000) for similar testimony challenging a gay adoption. What does he do with the money he earns by contradicting the shared wisdom of his profession? He hands some of it over to male prostitutes.
  • The curious appeal of 'baggage-handling' ... Philip Hensher. The Independent. London (UK): May 10, 2010. pg. 20
• Then this upstanding, Bible-quoting family man uses his money to hire a 20-year-old male prostitute from rentboy.com as his sole companion on a European vacation.
  • NO LAWSUITIS TOO SLEAZY FOR MCCOLLUM Frank Cerabino. Palm Beach Post. West Palm Beach, Fla.: May 11, 2010. pg. B.1
• But now the minister-psychologist has been caught taking a young male prostitute on a 10-day luxury vacation in Europe.
  • Hypocrisy:; 'Family values' mess Gzedit. The Charleston Gazette. Charleston, W.V.: May 12, 2010. pg. A.4
• Asked the next day by the Miami New Times to explain why he was travelling "with a 20-year-old male prostitute with long blond hair, a swimmer's build and an uncircumcised penis", Rekers is reported to have stammered...
  • Is Middle America ready to accept the right to be gay?; US attitudes to homosexuality are at last becoming more liberal-- even among the military top brass James Fenton. Evening Standard. London (UK): May 14, 2010. pg. 14

And so on. My point is that we can find sources for all of these terms. Since no one term is the obvuious choice, we should rely on our own editorial judgment. That could include using all of the terms, such as "Lucien, described in reports variously as a 'gay male escort', a 'male prostitute'...", or we can just pick one.   Will Beback  talk  01:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Will; I feel more comfortable with the current intro now that I see print newspapers used the term "male prostitute". John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Improper synthesis?

[11] reverted an IP that removed the possibly WP:SYN statement that Zuker and other guys use Rekers' development of Green's work. The IP seems to be correct. While [12] for instance cites both papers of Rekers and Green, it makes no claim that Rekers' work extends somehow Green's (although it does imply that Zucker's extends Green's). Tijfo098 (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I would agree, and would suggest removing reference to Di Ceglie altogether, as its mere citation of a couple of papers Rekers was a co-author of (one of which being one of four proposed diagnostic models being discussed) is too thin a basis to establish relevance. It might also be appropriate to check how directly relevant Rekers' work is to Zucker as well. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

On closer examination, it only says that Rekers' work is "is cited in this context" by Zucker. I would not consider being merely cited as particularly noteworthy. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed; I've removed it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The general claim that "Rekers'" classification is in use today was also dubious. Di Ceglie (2000) wrote:

Third [classifcation] is Rosen et al's (1977) distinction between cross-gender identification and gender-behaviour disturbance. This classification has proved unsatisfactory, as a large number of children (71%) present both characteristics (Bentler et al, 1979).

citing:

• Rosen, A. C., Rekers, G. A. & Friar, L. A. (1977) Theoretical and diagnostic issues in child gender disturbances. Journal of Sex Research, 13, 89—103.
• Bentler, P. M., Rekers, G. A. & Rosen, A. C. (1979) Congruence of childhood sex-role identity and behaviour disturbance. Child: Care, Health and Development, 5, 267—283.

So, that distinction became unsatisfactory only two years after initial publication, even to its authors. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Rekers wrote in 1988 that Zucker's 1982 paper (doi:10.1016/S0002-7138(09)60883-9) found his procedure (of evaluating children's play) to have diagnostic utility. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Probably a better source for evaluating Rerker's research in the area of GID is the more recent 1995 book of Zucker and Bradley. I see Rekers shows up a good number of times (on a GB search) in it, but I haven't read the passages. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

University of South Carolina

I was curious to see what courses this fellow taught and went to the University's website, but I cannot find anyone by the name Rekers in their faculty list. I can't imagine that this is the sort of credential one makes up, but trying to source it just gave me links that looked as though they had grabbed their information from wiki or from Rekers own webpage. 99.89.12.255 (talk) 02:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The article says he is an "emeritus" professor, which aren't necessarily included in such lists. I presume there's a source somewhere for his former role as a professor there.   Will Beback  talk  04:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Gender Therapy with Kirk/Kraig

This guy has been back in the news recently: http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/06/07/sissy.boy.experiment/index.html?hpt=hp_c1 I thought I'd post that for those who are watching, I'll try to swing back later this week to incorporate this in to the article. --MTHarden (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this link. The content is excellent. It is about therapy process designed by Rekers for the purpose of making males deemed to be feminine into males deemed to be masculine. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

This needs to be added to the article so everyone knows what this fucker did to innocent boys-- leading them to suicide and identity disorder for the rest of their lives. Shocking and reprehensible. 67.241.176.96 (talk)

Jim Burroway has done much more extensive research on Rekers (aka 'The gay Mengele') than CNN: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.117.134.245 (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources related to Kirk/Kreig:

• Bullock, Penn and Brandon K. Thorp. (Special to CNN) "Reporters find tragic story amid embarrassing scandal." CNN. June 8, 2011.
• Bronstein, Scott and Jessi Joseph. "Therapy to change 'feminine' boy created a troubled man, family says." CNN. June 8, 2011.

WhisperToMe (talk) 03:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Some of the editors above seem not to have noticed that material about the Kirk Murphy ("Kraig") case is already in the article, and was added a day before this section was started. Given the recent publicity, should the article have more on this case, perhaps in the "Scholarly work" section? Does it deserve a mention in the lead?

Also, although I personally have a great deal of respect for the work Jim Burroway has done on his Box Turtle Bulletin site, I don't know whether it meets Wikipedia standards as a reliable source. On the one hand, Burroway's material is extensively researched, referenced and footnoted; on the other hand, Box Turtle Bulletin appears to be a self-published source, which means that we can't use it as a reference on a biography of a living person. That said, since the material on BTB is so well-footnoted, we can use it as a pointer to other acceptable sources (such as the links to Rekers' published papers, news articles on Rekers, and so forth) which themselves are acceptable to Wikipedia. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

external links

there needs to be some kind of disclaimer on the external link to factsaboutyouth.com. there is nothing factual on that website. it's not wikipedia's job to do this, but the harm that website causes is more important. StarDust787 (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I removed the link entirely. It's prominently linked on the main page of the subject's official website, which is linked. There's no need to link to every different domain the subject has registered. See WP:EL.   Will Beback  talk  20:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It is deeply satisfying to see how well this article has developed. I have followed it over the last years and what stand here now is enormously better than I had ever dared to hope. This process of editing of this article, over time (see the archived discussion pages) also illustrates quite well why Wikipedia is losing so many editors and having such enormous trouble finding new editors willing to stick around. First, the abuse of all the rules and regulations to attack those who did not share the world view of those established editors to whom the article very definitely belongs. Then, the drive by administrative attacks (especially by one admin in particular) which were exclusively used to prevent editors from violating the territory marked out by editors belonging to the inner circle. Finally, the 'bite the newbies' attacks, again by that one admin and the established editors. The mediation process failed here totally. The 'assume good will' process failed totally. This article and all the lines of discussion should be used as examples of just what is not right here at Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.57.209.177 (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Rent boy at Miami Airport sources

Sources related to the rent boy stuff:

• The contract Rekers signed with the rent boy
• "FRC Statement on Dr. George Rekers." Family Research Council. May 6, 2010.
• Bullock, Penn and Brandon K. Thorp. "Christian right leader George Rekers takes vacation with "rent boy"." Miami New Times. Thursday May 6, 2010.
• Garcia-Roberts, Gus. "George Rekers Has Company: The Top Ten Outed Right-Wing Homophobes." Miami New Times. Thursday May 6, 2010.
• Montopoli, Brian. "George Rekers, Christian Right Leader, Denies Gay Prostitution Allegation." CBS News. May 5, 2010.

WhisperToMe (talk) 03:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing that calling Rekers a "closet homosexual" or putting him in any sort of gay categories would be still be considered a BLP violation.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

There could be an appropriate category. Provide a source and propose a category. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

No, such a category would violate WP:BLPCAT. AV3000 (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that all possible proposals violate BLPCAT. This person is already in Category:Religious scandals and if someone wants to talk about refining that to be more specific then there could be an agreeable way to do it. It starts with sources which explicitly give a name to the nature of the event, though. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)