Talk:Pray the Gay Away?

Youtube video

This youtube video is self-published by Waybe Besen and is an extremely poor source. This derogatory attack on Lisa Ling violates WP:BLP, specifically WP:BLPSPS. Note that 3RR does not apply to removal of BLP violations.– Lionel ^(talk) 23:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Saying that Ling apparently did not do a good job researching this subject is not a "derogatory attack". Wayne Besen is a recognized expert on the subject of the "ex-gay" movement, having published an award-nominated book on the subject. His expertise and experience with the subject are more than ample to justify including his point of view on this subject, whether it's in the form of a YouTube video or an op-ed in The New York Times. Please stop removing this valid information for an invalid reason. Thanks. 76.201.145.83 (talk) 00:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Self published is self published. This source is not allowable per WP:BLP. Continue to edir war and you risk blocking.– Lionel ^(talk) 00:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Self-published sources are not categorically forbidden. And even if they were, there are plenty of sources that are not self-published which report Besen's saying the same thing. 76.201.145.83 (talk) 00:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I have now added a non-self published source to the article which supports the statement. This issue is addressed per your own stated requirements. 76.201.145.83 (talk) 00:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for admitting that the source was insufficient all along. It takes a big man, or woman, to admit when they're wrong. An apology is not necessary. – Lionel ^(talk) 01:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The source was perfectly adequate to everyone except you. There was no "admission" on my part and your attempt to spin it is ridiculous. 76.201.145.83 (talk) 01:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The newly added piece by Besen has a disclaimer from the Advocate "This article is the opinion of the writer and not The Advocate." Since this lacks editorial control it must be removed per WP:BLP. – Lionel ^(talk) 01:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Op-ed pieces are editorially vetted and they perfectly acceptable as sources. Just stop already. 76.201.145.83 (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

True. But in this particular case the Advocate explicitly states that this piece is not editorially vetted. Response? – Lionel ^(talk) 01:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

"This isn't our opinion" does not equal "this was not editorially vetted". 76.201.145.83 (talk) 03:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

"John"

"John" (no last name provided) is a blogger at AfterElton.com, a news and blogging site. The article says he "took Ling to task..." This falls under WP:BLP. WP:BLPSPS says "Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals." Obviously John is not a professional and this source must be removed. I invite the IP to revert themself to mitigate any further embarassment. – Lionel ^(talk) 01:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• You do realize that writers write under pseudonyms all the time, right? Even professional writers?
• Unless you can cite proof of your assertion that "John" is not a professional writer then your stated reason for wanting the source removed, like every other objection you've raised, is invalid. The reliability of AfterElton.com has been questioned before (see the easily found [1]) and it appears that it is accepted as reliable. It is not "an online column" hosted by a "news organization". It is a news organization in and of itself. "John" is not listed as the publisher of AfterElton content. The television channel Logo, which is a wholly owned property of Viacom, is, under the editorial direction of one Dennis Ayers. AfterElton is cited as a reliable source in over 300 Wikipedia articles.
• Further, the idea that a negative review is disallowed under any policy is ludicrous on its face. Interpreting policies in that fashion would require the wholesale removal of any negative criticism of any living actor from every film article, every critical comment about the actions of any living politician, etc. There is no way that your interpretation is reasonable.
• So, I must decline your invitation to revert. And I'm not at all embarrassed about it. 76.201.145.83 (talk) 01:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• The policy is clear. He must be a professional. This is not a guessing game. Please read WP:BURDEN and get back to me as soon as you can. – Lionel ^(talk) 01:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• John's article on AfterElton is not a self-published source because John is not the publisher of AfterElton. 76.201.145.83 (talk) 03:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

You need to cite a policy for inclusion. Your personal feelings on the subject are irrelevant.– Lionel ^(talk) 05:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

That's hilarious, since you've been operating based on your personal feelings for months, citing policy after policy erroneously in your concerted effort to gut this article. 76.201.145.83 (talk) 12:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Wayne Besen

Wayne Besen is a noteworthy expert on the "ex-gay" movement. He is mentioned or cited as a reference in over 30 Wikipedia articles. His response to this program merits inclusion. 76.201.145.83 (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Your argument has no basis in policy.– Lionel ^(talk) 05:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Nothing you've done relating to this article has a basis in reality, let alone policy. 76.201.145.83 (talk) 12:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Unbalanced tag

I added an unbalanced tag to the response subsection because it only includes criticism from the homosexual community. We need a wider variation of responses. NYyankees51 (talk) 14:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Well then why not take the time to find those sources, if they exist? 76.201.145.83 (talk) 02:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)