Talk:Exodus International

A Statistical Study Of Exodus Participants – Jones and Yarhouse

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

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

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

First, thank you for your discussion. I did check on WP:V and found this, which seems to contradict your viewpoint:

"All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them.

"In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is."

Thus, I offer that I can tighten up the text by removing some of the "blog" information. But the book was notable for its examination of Exodus participants within the "given" background of the APA and Exodus statements; the book was 'published by a respected publishing house'; and I felt obligated to 'fairly represent all majority and significant minority viewpoints'. Also, the last concluding remark is highly significant, since it shows a bridge forming between the ministry-based Exodus view and the professional psychology-based view. A sentence or two will not easily 'fairly represent' the multiple viewpoints, in my opinion. Caryn LeMur (talk) 04:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Right, "In general" books published by respected publishing houses are reliable sources. But, when it comes to scientific research, the standard is stricter: "The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals." (WP:RS) That criterion hasn't been met here. Because this book is particularly relevant to Exodus (they were involved with its creation), I do think it should be included, but it should be included in the context of "Exodus points to this non-peer reviewed study of its members for support", not in the context of "Here is a study and here is what it concluded." Fireplace (talk) 05:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I added a 'Note, not peer-reviewed' statement to the very first line of the Jones/Yarhouse text. I also deleted the concluding defense of the work by Jones/Yarhouse (since a 'defense' is more in keeping with peer-reviewed scientific literature). Caryn LeMur (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

If Fireplace's objection to the prominence of survey is WP:RS, maybe we should include some other studies on Exodus participants that were peer-reviewed, such as Throckmorton's Initial empirical and clinical findings concerning the change process for ex-gays[1], and Efforts to Modify Sexual Orientation: A Review of Outcome Literature and Ethical Issues[2], or even Nicolosi's Retrospective self-reports of changes in homosexual orientation: A consumer survey of conversion therapy clients. [3]. There are plenty of peer-reviewed papers that document a change in homosexual orientation among Exodus members. We can modify the section to be Professional Studies and just have the Jones and Yarhouse results be one of many professional surveys, hopefully satisfying Fireplace's undue weight objection and Caryn's bridge between the ministry-based Exodus view and the professional psychology-based view.

I'm not exactly sure what Caryn means by wanting to keep Exodus' "products" on this page. First of all, I think most ex-gays would site a variety of sources that helped them change their orientation, such as conversion therapy, ecclesiastical help, support from loved ones, and most important, God. I don't think Exodus should claim all of the credit. However, we already have a section on "defects" (to continue the products analogy), so it only makes sense to have a section on successes. Defects and successes seem to be scattered on the conversion therapy page, ex-gay page, and the ex-gay category, with IMHO a disproportionate representation of the negative side. I would feel better if the people would have their own pages (if they are significant to warrant such) and only have a brief summary on each of the related pages. I think the John Paulk "incident" takes up way too much space and should be summarized and remain on the John Paulk page. On the other hand, Joe Dallas, Mike Haley, Sy Rogers etc. aren't even mentioned.Joshuajohanson (talk) 03:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I greatly enjoy the idea of "Professional Studies That Examined Exodus Participants" or similar as a new section title. And yes, I hope Jones & Yarhouse are just one of several studies that should be included, using neutral POV. I did review the Throckmorton reference you supplied (not the others). I think an abstract of Throckmorton's work would be excellent, especially highlighting what pertains to Exodus participants. Do you concur with title change? Do you wish to supply abstract/short summary of Throckmorton's work? Shall we post the studies in reverse chronological order?

Yeah, I'll work on that. Let's get what information we can find in there, and then worry about the heading/order.

I did go ahead and add some headers (this is discussed in a new thread). Caryn LeMur (talk) 19:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I do see a difference emerging on the Internet concerning 'vanity blogs' and 'professional interchange blogs'. Dr. Chapman posted professional concerns on Exgaywatch.com and therefore, I believed his post was a verifiable professional reference. Additionally, Jones & Yarhouse crafted a defense of their work, and posted that very defense also on Exgaywatch.com. Those that post comments after Dr. Chapman and Jones/Yarhouse may be considered less of a verifiable reference(since those posts, to include my own, then approach being a 'vanity blog'). No insult intended to any party. But I do think we are seeing 'blogs' move into the professional interchange category, and therefore I do think that Wikipedia should include this type of emerging forum in its Reliable Sources pages.

I think agree, but whatever discussion we have should be on the WP:Reliable Sources page, since this phenomenon is obviously much greater than just Exodus.

Very good point about the negative "incidents". I would love a section concerning the pluses of the Exodus leaders. In a sense, the "incidents" show the negative side of the leaders; if anyone can supply the plus side of the leadership story, I'd love to see it included. The up-side of the leadership story would greatly balance this article. I have attempted to locate third-party and/or verifiable information on Joe Dallas during his tenure as Exodus Chairman, but simply failed. I've attempted to find information on the positives that Paulk obtained for Exodus, and again, my searches via the Internet have simply produce very little. Help would be most appreciated. Perhaps the section should be re-cast as two sections: "Leadership Successes" and "Leadership Incidents". Then, we may be forced to move the current "incident" on the "billboard parody" to a new subcategory... perhaps "Notable Incidents" or similar. Your thoughts?

There is a summary on the conversion therapy page, one on the [[ex-gay] page, as well as individual pages such as Alan Chambers, Andrew Comiskey, and others in Category:Ex-gay_people. I am also trying to collect information on my sandbox page: User:Joshuajohanson/Homosexuality. They aren't all Exodus people, but fall under the broader group of ex-gay. Feel free to contribute, but know that it is my sandbox, and I reserve the right to do revert any of your changes.

You are correct that I added to the Paulk section a number of references, to include Paulk's own statement. I think that such statements, while lengthening an article, are critical in understanding the human factor in an organization. Organizational factors may include group culture, group language, group discipline, leadership, changing economics, business goals/evolution, and so forth. Organizations can create cultures; cultures create their own language; cultures and language define in-groups, out-groups, acceptability, accountability; organizations operate within a socio-economic background; goals evolve. I first expanded Paulk's article in the interest of neutrality, and then to capture the essential points that created balance of differing views. Allow me to re-engineer some of that section, and see if I can create greater conciseness or at least a more clear posting.

I am fine with what you added, and I think most of it should be on the John Paulk page. After all, he is just one member of Exodus.

Good points. I moved most of the material to John Paulk's article. I am curious if the Newsweek cover controversy belongs on Exodus International, John Paulk, and/or Ex-gay? It may belong on more than one article. Caryn LeMur (talk) 19:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm searching for the proper analogy for what to include about an "organization", hence the term "product". I don't mean to offend anyone. "Exodus Products" is the best I could think of at the time. I first agree that many other agencies create the same "product". I don't think I've implied that Exodus should "claim all the credit"; however, if my language failed on the article page and implied that Exodus is the only manufacturer of the 'product', please do correct my language. By the way, Merry (almost) Christmas, thank you much for posting your thoughts and for help you can provide. Caryn LeMur (talk) 05:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's get away from the product analogy and just call it People associated with the Exodus movement. We need not even break it down into positives or negatives, because I don't think it is our job to do that. What I meant by saying Exodus shouldn't claim all the credit is that I think most of the information on the people should be on their own page and only a short summary on this page. And a merry Christmas to you too.Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the short summary concept, and reduced the Paulk input accordingly. Caryn LeMur (talk) 19:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

NPOV not a noble goal on this page

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

And I think you're full of crap. Come on, what kind of argument is that? Joshuajohanson (talk) 07:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Avoiding the personal attack, it is perfectly appropriate to speak here about the harm which EI causes (properly sourced, of course). Tb (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I was opposed to the phrase "EI should be silenced" and changing the wording of the article to state EI is a crony. [4] Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Harm vs. Support

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

The facts can speak for themselves and the article goes into detail about people who have been both harmed and helped by the organization. EI supporters and controversies are covered in the article fairly. --Knulclunk (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no big beef with the article body--it is the first sentence which is making the POV claim that Exodus helps its targeted population. Surely there is a way to phrase this sentence to avoid taking sides in the controversy. The current wording says that it helps its target audience, and that's a highly controversial claim. Tb (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It does not say that it helps them. It says it "supports" them in a decision that is theirs to make, whether some feel that is a wise decision or not.--Knulclunk (talk) 01:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain how it is POV to say what I would prefer, that it targets them? Or aims at, or intends its efforts toward, or some other more neutral term? Note that it does not say it supports a decision; it says rather that it supports them. I believe that Exodus harms people who are "looking for freedom from homosexuality", and that opinion is hardly unusual. The article should remain NPOV, expressing neither the opinion that it helps (or supports), or the view that it harms. There is clearly a phrasing which would do that. Why do you object to it? Tb (talk) 04:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If both the individuals and Exodus want the same thing, something that both consider positive, why insist that there is something more sinister? Is there a proportional greater evidence of Exodus seeking out to recruit or indoctrinate people against their will? Or are you implying that organizations like Queer Nation and GLAAD are "good", while Exodus is "bad"? Are you implying that sexual activity can't be controlled? or shouldn't be curbed? Or is it that Exodus does not fit positively into your world view; WP:BIAS? --Knulclunk (talk) 10:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

So, basically, you're saying that it doesn't matter how controversial it is, the article can go ahead and say that Exodus helps people in its lead, and it doesn't matter whether that's a controversial claim, because you think it's true? Tb (talk) 15:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The article can say that Exodus "supports" people in its lead. We should define Exodus by its intention, yes. Its controversy is secondary to its mission, but its mission is unambiguous here. Let the facts speak for themselves. For a reader who feels that the Exodus mission is rubbish or dangerous, the current language does not preclude that. For a reader who feels the the Exodus mission is worthy or noble, the lead of this article is not the place for that battle either. This article is not an essay about the morality of Exodus. We aren't saying that Exodus "helps" people, we are saying Exodus is intended to support them in reducing, suppressing or controlling their unwanted homosexual desires. That is OBVIOUSLY controversial, do we need to say it is BAD? --Knulclunk (talk) 03:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article shouldn't say it's bad--but I would be happy to say "intends to support." Tb (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Better lede

Hi all,

Would anyone care to suggest a better lede than:

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

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

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

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

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

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

jones and yarhouse results?

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

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

Section 4.1, second sentence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Founders?

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

Loss of Tax Exempt Status

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

I agree with including this, especially given the strong reliance on APA and AMA positions in the ruling (possible relevance for other countries?).

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

Using Distorted Research

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

Jenova20 16:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Press releases from biased orgs have skeptical reliability.Lionel (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Any source could be considered biased, in this case you would have difficulty proving a bias as Change.org is allowing a petition and a counter petition, no bias there.

Thus any other site mentioning either will have a bias as to which they mention.

Jenova20 08:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Source 36 / Change.org counter petition

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

The original source is primary. Policy is clear. I don't know what else to say. Um... You aren't serious about Bin Laden's signature, are you? Lionel (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Controversy isn't the issue. Reliability is. The actual petition itself is a primary source. We require reportage from a secondary source such as NY Times or Wash Post. Looking at the petition and counting the signatures is original research.Lionel (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think the two signatures could make a difference but i can see why they could be troubling there as two joke names of 16 could make that whole side look like a joke.

Jenova20 08:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a better source now.

Jenova20 15:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The section is beginning to grow out of proportion, in wikipseak that's WP:UNDUE. For an org that's been around for 40 years, with such international influence, it's hard to justify the size of this section, which also suffers from WP:RECENTISM.Lionel (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I feel the section is the right size to give equal weight to each viewpoint.

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint."

I'm not logged in at the moment 81.137.240.118 (talk) 10:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

In the news

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