Talk:Homosexuals Anonymous

Verbatim Quotations

Besen (2003)

Besen, Wayne R. (2003). "Founding Follies". Anything but Straight: Unmasking the Scandals and Lies Behind the Ex-Gay Myth. Routledge. pp. 97–98. ISBN 9781560234463.

Pages 97–98: HA has only one mention of Cook on its Web site, and this reference is a sanitized version that omits his history of seedy behavior. HA refers to him as "founder," but never as failure. By reading the group's Web page, one would think that Cook was a smashing success and paragon of heterosexuality.

By purging these embarrassments while promulgating airbrushed histories, these groups are cheating prospective clients. ... Describing Colin Cook as simply the "founder" of HA is an understatement as absurd as describing O. J. Simpson as no more than a Heisman Trophy winner from the University of Southern California.

Ex-gay groups will argue that these defections and scandals simply mean that these men have "fallen off the wagon" like alcoholics reverting back to drinking. But let's face it, these men built the wagon, and they say it has always been a faulty wagon that never worked. If the men who invented these programs now denounce them or show they have failed to heal through them, how are they going to work for those who blindly follow in their footsteps?

Besen, Wayne R. (2003). "Future Follies and Failures". Anything but Straight: Unmasking the Scandals and Lies Behind the Ex-Gay Myth. Routledge. pp. 262–265. ISBN 9781560234463.

Page 262: The GLBT community must rise to the challenge and equal the fervor of the ex-gay ministries in terms of outreach. I have been to many ex-gay conferences across America where there was virtually no presence by the GLBT community. At these conferences ex-gay groups were free to disseminate their propaganda with no one present to offer an alternative point of view. Occasionally, groups such as Mel White's Soulforce are on hand to offer a counterbalance, but the GLBT presence at Exodus, NARTH, and Homosexuals Anonymous events is spotty and inconsistent. The GLBT community must marshal the resources and the will to take on these groups on their home turf. ... I believe that GLBT religious organizations must go on a crusade to make sure every person involved in an ex-gay ministry is aware of an alternative point of view.

Page 265: Another, extremely controversial way the GLBT community can precipitate the end of the ex-gay experiment is to dispatch undercover teams to catch ex-gay leaders engaging in not so ex-gay behavior. Imagine a team of young, attractive men and women outfitted with hidden cameras and tape recorders. Many of these contraptions are small enough to fit in a pen or notepad. These operatives could be dispatched to every ex-gay ministry in the nation to see whether the leaders try to seduce them. Simultaneously, a deal can be cut with a network or cable television show to air the juiciest parts of the videos.

Although this is a radical plan, I estimate it would put one-quarter to one-half of the ex-gay ministries out of business within a year. Sure, this is hardball, but if enough big leaders fell, this covert operation might have an outside shot at toppling the ex-gay ministries. And even if the results were disappointing and only ten ministries were exposed on television, it would still have a devestating impact.

I am a staunch proponent of covert operations to undermine Exodus or Homosexuals Anonymous, but many GLBT leaders are adamantly against this, citing misplaced privacy concerns.

Haldeman (1994)

Haldeman, Douglas, C. (1994). "The Practice and Ethics of Sexual Orientation Conversion Therapy". Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 62 (2): 221–227.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Page 224: Blair (1982) ... further characterizes many religious conversionists as individuals deeply troubled about their own sexual orientation, or whose own sexual conversion is incomplete. Blair reports a host of problems with such counselors, including the sexual abuse of clients.

The most notable of such ministers is Colin Cook. Cook's counseling program, Quest, led to the development of Homosexuals Anonymous, the largest antigay fundamentalist counseling organization in the world. The work of Cook, his ultimate demise, and the subsequent cover-up by the Seventh Day Adventist Church are described by sociologist Ronald Lawson (1987).

Haldeman (2003)

Haldeman, Douglas C. (2003). "The Practice of Ethics and Conversion Therapy". In Garnets, L. D.; Kimmel, D. C. (eds.). Psychological Perspectives on on Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Experiences (2nd ed.). Columbia University Press. pp. 681–689. ISBN 978-0231124133.

Pages 688–689: Gay men who are most likely to be inclined towards doctrinaire religious practice are also likely to have low self-concepts, to see homosexuality as more sinful, to feel a greater sense of apprehension about negative responses from others, and to be more depressed in general (Weinberg and Williams 1974). Such individuals are vulnerable targets for the "ex-gay" ministries, as they are known. Fundamentalist Christian groups, such as Homosexuals Anonymous, Metanoia Ministries, Love in Action, Exodus International, and EXIT of Melodyland are the most visible purveyors of conversion therapy. The workings of these groups are well documented by Blair (1982), who states that, although many of these practitioners publicly promise change, they privately acknowledge that celibacy is the realistic goals to which gay men and lesbians must aspire.

Page 689: From this ministry sprang Homosexuals Anonymous, a 14-step program modeled after Alcoholics Anonymous, which has become the largest fundamentalist organization in the world with a unitary antigay focus. Lawson, in attempting to research the efficacy of Cook's program, was denied access to counselees on the basis of confidentiality. Nonetheless, he managed to interview fourteen clients, none of whom reported any change in sexual orientation. All but two reported that Cook had had sex with them during treatment.

Jones and Yarhouse (2000)

Jones, Stanton; Yarhouse, Mark A. (2000). Homosexuality: the Use of Scientific Research in the Church's Moral Debate. InterVarsity Press. pp. 135–136. ISBN 9780830815678. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

Pages 135–136: Homosexuals Anonymous (HA) represents approximately fifty chapters throughout North America. HA follows the general format of Alcoholics Anonymous but is more overtly Christian. They have fourteen steps that roughly parallel AA with some specific adaptations for homosexuality and specific to Christian faith. ... there are no published outcome studies at this time to confirm the effectiveness of HA, although there are a number of testimonials of change. (This is also consistent with AA, where there has historically been great difficulty establishing the effectiveness of support groups due to high dropout rates and fluid membership.)

Kell and Camp (1999)

Kell, Carl (1999). In the Name of the Father: the Rhetoric of the New Southern Baptist Convention. Southern Illinois University Press. p. 99. ISBN 0-8093-2220-X. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Page 99: To effect this change [in sexual orientation], an organization called "Homosexuals Anonymous" has developed a "fourteen-step" method. The alleged generosity of this approach may seem similar to the Alcoholics Anonymous method, yet closer study suggests otherwise. Both groups emphasise avoidance behaviors. However, while AA groups accept the person along with their problems, Homosexuals Anonymous stresses that the person is guilty of the sin of homosexuality, must admit it, renounce it, and then accept heterosxuality as a necessary condition to becoming a Christian.

Lead

This sentence in the lead is verified by two sources: These practices are cautioned against by mainstream scientific organizations, which hold that there is no evidence that sexual orientation can be changed and that such attempts can be harmful. However, the citations listed only verify the claim that "there is no evidence that sexual orientation can be changed". I propose there be a separate verification of "that such attempts can be harmful" or that the citation marker be moved to more closely indicate its intent. Also, there appears to be nothing verifying that attempting to change sexual orientation can be harmful. What should be done here? 27.32.152.121 (talk) 11:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The simplest solution is to cite it as i have just done. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 15:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Overuse of Quotes in Lead

The quoted phrases in the lead are misleading and detract from the readability of the text. If these are indeed quotes, I could not find them in the cited source (try finding "sexual brokenness that may be healed through faith in Jesus Christ." in [7]). If they are being used to say something is so-called, then what is subjective about "renouncing homosexuality"? If you look up renounce in the dictionary, that is exactly what they are asking people to do. What should be done here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.152.121 (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

They are quotes because they are from the organisation themselves and are magical claims of curing gay people of being. If they were not in quotes then they would be in Wikipedia's voice and violate WP:Weight, thus having to be removed completely. All organizations tend to have a mission statement or similar information and notable quotes. "Renouncing homosexuality" is a perfect example - it is their words, not ours. Renouncing is very controversial in this case since sexuality is not an addiction or a habit you can "renounce" and HA leaders themselves admit that homosexuality is incurable. The organization only live on because people and churches still ignore that and fund them anyway. If i missed anything there then let me know. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 22:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

You missed any mention of the missing quote, "sexual brokenness that may be healed through faith in Jesus Christ." I don't think anything about the word renounce suggests that homosexuality is a habit. Can you clarify? My point was that it should be in Wikipedia's voice as there's nothing misleading about describing what they urge people to do. 202.93.155.225 (talk) 23:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Sexual brokenness" is a quote, so we do not put it in Wikipedia's voice. And the part about healing with Jesus is not a scientific or the mainstream view, so it does not go in Wikipedia's voice as it would violate WP:Weight. Wikipedia uses science and reliable sources for articles. Conservapedia is the one that uses the Bible and quotes from magical and mythical creatures. Did i get it all? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Right, so if "sexual brokenness" is a quote, don't you think the quote should be reined in a little so as not to mislead and/or make the paragraph unreadable? The part about healing through faith in Jesus is not scientific, but the sentence starts with "HA regards sexuality as". I don't think anybody would confuse this with Wikipedia's voice. You did not clarify what you believe constitutes weight the phrase "renounce homosexuality". 27.32.152.121 (talk) 10:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

One more thing. Regarding the voice issue, I think you might be referring to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

You'll note that the "HA regards sexuality as..." sentence is practically identical to "genocide has been described by John X as..." in the section titled "Explanation of the Neutral Point of View". They do not recommend that half of the sentence is quoted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.152.121 (talk) 10:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

They're still quotes after that section, hence the speech marks. With a topic like this making such outlandish claims we have to be careful to explain those without putting it in Wikipedia's voice. And as you can see there are multiple policies to adhere to with something like this. So we must carefully explain what the company does without making it seem factual, as the citations from the company themselves cannot be used for that. WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:Reliable...there's a few to be aware of. The fact of the matter is that we cannot put these things into Wikipedia's voice, but we must explain what the company does. So we're at the situations where there's a few quotes. They're not causing harm and there's not many of them though. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Plus, 22 words is a short sentence, not half of the lede. That's how much is quoted, and i'm sure even the Born This Way Foundation features more than that...Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I've looked over the section and I think that the scare quotes are a bit misleading. The sentance that causes the most concern is

In line with HA's view of Christian teaching, HA regards heterosexuality as "the universal creation-norm" and homosexuality as "sexual brokenness that may be healed through faith in Jesus Christ."[7] This approach is characterized by urging a person to "renounce homosexuality" and "become a heterosexual Christian."[8]

Now "the universal creation norm" is fine, but scarequoting "sexual brokennes..." indicates a direct quote, not a scarequote. Additionally there isn't any real fear of saying it in wikipedia's voice, or give the ideas some form of validity outside the source since the ideas are clearly identified as HA's view. I think we should retain "the universal creation norm" and unquote the rest of that sentence.Coffeepusher (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I would take issue with unquoting "sexual brokenness that may be healed through faith in Jesus Christ." since it is clear baloney to suggest in Wikipedia's voice that you can cure gay with prayer. A claim disputed by every mainstream scientific organisation worth mentioning. I welcome your discussion here though as it can only help the situation. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 15:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) I am confused as to how you believe that stating:

HA regards heterosexuality as "the universal creation-norm" and homosexuality as sexual brokenness that may be healed through faith in Jesus Christ.

will somehow give legitimacy to HA's view by stating it in "wikipedia's voice." This sentence very clearly states that this is HA's view, and scareqotes are only used, per wikipedia's manual of style, when the speaker is trying to be either ironic or use the scarequoted word in a manor different from the traditional usage.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, i see from your example that i have misunderstood. Thank you for clearing that up. I support your recommendation fully ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 17:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

ok glad we can see vis a vis. Ill take care of the section.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank-you, Coffeepusher. The lead no longer looks like a quoted mess, which is what my initial edit was trying to achieve. 27.32.152.121 (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

quotes from HA in lede

the following sentence is currently under dispute for reasons I am unclear of:

HA regards heterosexuality as "the universal creation-norm" and homosexuality as sexual brokenness that may be healed through faith in Jesus Christ.

Could you please explain your removal of a cited sentence which briefly lays out the views of the subject of the article?Coffeepusher (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

If it is to be retained, then it should be in quotes as there was a solid discussion on this as noted on DRN by the closing reviewer. --Scientiom (talk) 13:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

please see discussion above.Coffeepusher (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

A discussion barely attented by only 3 editors is not consensus, there was already solid consensus on this as noted on DRN. --Scientiom (talk) 13:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Wait a minute, it seems that the sources presented are not even linked to this group! In which case the paragraph must be removed. We cannot say "HA regards.." when that's not what the sources say. --Scientiom (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Where does the sources not say that? I am currently reading "and homosexuals anonymous..." in the citation. That's how secondary sources work, they aren't primary they are secondary and talk about the group.Coffeepusher (talk) 13:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I wrote the sentences that have evolved into the current content - here is the version as I left it in 2011. Note that quotes were only on "sexual brokenness" (supported by the Jones source) and not the rest of the phrase. I note that some of the references I used have since gone and the sentences redrafted. What I wrote as a lede paragraph was:

Homosexuals Anonymous (HA) is an ex-gay group which practices conversion therapy[2] and describes itself as "a fellowship of men and women, who through their common emotional experience, have chosen to help each other live in freedom from homosexuality."[3] HA regards homosexual orientation as "sexual brokeness" that may be "healed" through faith in Jesus Christ.[4] In common with other Christian fundamentalist groups, HA regards heterosexuality as "the universal creation-norm".[5][2][4] This approach has been criticized for stressing that a person must renounce homosexuality to be a Christian,[6] and because it is inconsistent with the mainstream view that there is no scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed.[7]

I suggest that you might re-work this older version and its references to come to a consensus, as I'm not sure the current version is as accurate as the original. EdChem (talk) 13:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the above paragraph should be reinstated to replace the current sentence. it is not only well referenced, but lays out the exact belief system of HA.Coffeepusher (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

although I would replace "mainstream view" with "scientific consensus" in the last line, but that is one woman's opinion.Coffeepusher (talk) 13:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I see your point but to me "mainstream view" is preferable given the phrase "scientific evidence" is a few words later. What I really dislike is the current lede paragraph which I think is more suited to a second paragraph. How about...

Homosexuals Anonymous (HA) is an ex-gay group which practices conversion therapy[2] and describes itself as "a fellowship of men and women, who through their common emotional experience, have chosen to help each other live in freedom from homosexuality."[3] HA regards homosexual orientation as "sexual brokeness" that may be "healed" through faith in Jesus Christ.[4] In common with other Christian fundamentalist groups, HA regards heterosexuality as "the universal creation-norm".[5][2][4] This approach has been criticized for stressing that a person must renounce homosexuality to be a Christian,[6] and because it is inconsistent with the mainstream view that there is no scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed.[7]refs from this version

Conversion therapy is a pseudoscientific method which attempts to change the sexual orientation of homosexual or bisexual clients.[2][3] The professional consensus amongst mainstream scientific organizations is that homosexuality is a natural variation of human sexuality and cannot be regarded as a pathological condition. Consequently, they warn against attempts to "cure" people of non-heterosexual sexual orientations because such treatments are medically unsupported and unjustified, and because they represent a serious threat to the health and well-being of clients.[4][5][6]refs from current draft

I think this sequence is preferable, first describing HA in its own words before the reasons conversion therapy is unsupported. They could even be made a single paragraph. Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Very well written draft. Two suggestions: Perhaps we should quote from the sources more directly so that no controversial phrases appear to be in Wikipedia's voice, and secondly I do think that 'mainstream' may be unnecessary to mention. I'd support the draft with slight amendments, but do feel free go ahead and put it in. --Scientiom (talk) 14:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Quick question. What are we suggesting to replace? I would like this to replace the first two paragraphs of the Lede (as it covers similar content) but keep the third paragraph about the founding of HA.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely, the third paragraph is needed and should be retained, in my view. EdChem (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) quick question. What wikipedia standard says anything about "wikipedia's voice"? This week is literally the first time I have encountered people citing that standard without any reference to the standard.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, one place you can find it is in WP:YESPOV, a section of WP:NPOV. EdChem (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I seriously have never heard people talk about things being "in wikipedia's voice" before...and I edit Scientology articles.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Scientiom, is there a specific passage that you would like to be a direct quote. Based on the section that EdChem has given us it appears that everything is properly attributed to the point that no mistake will be made as to who is endorsing which statements. Is there a specific revision you would like to request?Coffeepusher (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I made the change. I inserted two wikilinks and changed "...and because they represent a serious threat to the health and well-being of clients" to "...and because they represent a serious threat to the mental health and well-being of clients" as I felt that was more in line with what the sources were saying.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I was told to see talk regarding my edit. The statement HA regards homosexual orientation as "sexual brokeness" that may be "healed" through faith in Jesus Christ. is sourced to an opinion of somebody not involved with HA. Yet, the statement implies that these words are from HA itself. It should either be sourced to HA, or removed, or attributed to somebody else. Govgovgov (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

no, the statement says that "HA regards homosexual orientation as 'sexual bokeness' that may be 'healed' through faith in Jesus christ" which is true and cited by a reliable source. Please see wikipedia's verifiability rules. Statements in articles should come from secondary sources, not primary sources whenever possible. You will see the discussion above about the use of scarequotes and why we have done it for the Lede.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It must be shown to be the opinion of the person. You must see that any reader will see the quote marks as statements by HA themselves. Govgovgov (talk) 15:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually I read them as scarequotes, and a proper use of scarequotes according to wikipedia's manual of style. In addition to being scarequotes they are also terminology derived from the source and the source is given. The section is both faithful to both the subject of the article and the source of the idea, and attribution is properly given.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

additionally, right now there is a current consensus on how quotes should be used, specifically those quotes you are challenging. As you can see from the discussion above, we have been working with this exact issue for a little while and have come to an agreement on what is to be done. Now I don't mind you being WP:BOLD but since your boldness was working against the current consensus the original form should probably remain as is unless you have moved one of the other editors of this page.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that it is very misleading, tantamount to lying to the reader. Is there somewhere I can go to dispute this? Govgovgov (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so the first step would be to wait. I would give it a day or so to see if someone involved with the former consensus on the page agrees with your assessment. The reason you do this is that it shows you were trying to work within the community first and gave it a good faith effort. Next you can go to the request for comment page or any of the other dispute resolution pages and ask for someone to look at this. Finally, if you feel that you have not been treated fairly you can go to the administrator notice board and see if there is a subsection from that page which will better solve the problem. It is my recommendation that you do not post on the ANI as the administrators do not typically get involved in issues like this on that board (it is reserved for problems which are probably going to lead to administrator intervention...ie. ban's etc.), but there may be a page on that board which will help you. The first thing to do is wait though because otherwise it looks like you are just escalating the issue without giving time for the community process to work...a day should be long enough, and don't edit war because then you suddenly become the bad guy and most community pages do not treat edit wars well.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll wait a day or two then go to DR if it doesn't work out. Govgovgov (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

glad I could help. also, perhaps you should post exactly what you want the change to be and why so that this community can discuss the exact changes. Something like "I propose we change '...xxxzzzxxxzzxxx' to '...xxxzzzxxxzzZZxxx' because 'blah blah blah'." That talk page style tends to generate more community discussion than just citing wikipedia regulations at each other.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok I'll do that, thanks. Govgovgov (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Specific sentence

The statement HA regards homosexual orientation as "sexual brokeness" that may be "healed" through faith in Jesus Christ. should be changed to Critics allege that HA regards ... because it is currently sourced to an opinion of somebody not involved with HA. Yet, the statement implies that these words are from HA itself. Govgovgov (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

To start the discussion, I believe we should keep the sentence as is. I appreciate Govgovgov's concern and have checked the HA homepage and I have not found anything that contradicts that statement. Whenever the words "critics allege that..." preface a statement it is usually followed by something that would be denied by the subject. In this case I believe that HA does believe and in fact publicizes that they believe homosexual orientation is sexual brokeness that may be healed through faith in Jesus Christ. For that reason I find no reason to preface the sentence.Coffeepusher (talk) 02:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I also think that they believe that homosexual orientation is sexual brokeness that may be healed through faith in Jesus Christ. However, the quote marks and language itself in the sentence make it look like they have said those exact words. That's my only problem with it. Govgovgov (talk) 03:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Govgovgov has been blocked as a sock of banned user Acoma Magic.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

They did at the time of the last consensus, which is why it is in quotes. I don't know if they rephrased it, moved it, or removed it since but they are still run the same and still try to cure gays with conversion therapy. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 21:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The phrase "sexual brokenness" and the term "healed" are both directly quoted from the source referenced at the end of the sentence. EdChem (talk) 11:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

That clears that up then ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 21:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

No, the problem is that it looks like HA are being quoted when in fact it's an author's opinion of HA that's being quoted. It should be attributed to that author rather than effectively pretending to be quoting HA. Goo86 (talk) 00:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

"The author's opinion ..." - the source is not an opinion piece. It is written by Julie Scott Jones, an academic and published by Ashgate Publishing, an academic publisher. Reading the preface makes it clear that it is a report on ethnographic research. In other words, we are talking about a clear reliable source and the identity of the author is not relevant. It is an uncontroversial statement that is supported by a suitable reference and needs no attribution beyond the citation. EdChem (talk) 02:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It does when it appears that HA themselves are being quoted. This isn't complicated - we can't lie to the reader. You can write "It is widely believed" or something like that; we're just not allowed to effectively lie in this article. Goo86 (talk) 02:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The quote is properly attributed to the correct source so no lying is taking place.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

You're deceiving or effectively lying to the vast majority of readers who don't check the source. Goo86 (talk) 03:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)