Talk:Ex-gay movement

Why Is Ted Haggard Mentioned Here??

I see Ted Haggard listed in the section entitled "Ex-Gay People." There is no citation, however, to suggest that Mr. Haggard has ever referred to himself as an ex-gay individual, or has publicly identified himself in any way with the community of people who assert that we have experienced freedom from homosexuality. Therefore, I would propose that he be removed from this section. Any thoughts from others?

SCBC (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It has been removed and added several times. I think it should be removed.Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a continuing edit-war. Do we have any source that says that Haggard is an example of an ex-gay? He certainly doesn't claim to have been once gay and then recovered. We appear to be doing original research here. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible source

Here is a link to a news-related story that some might find helpful with this article. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 06:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It's mostly about People Can Change. As the article states, many other ex-gay organizations, such as Exodus International, disagree with People Can Change, so I think the article would be better placed there. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a source for the article. If someone knows where to put it, then feel free. If no one has inserted it by tomorrow, I'll try to find a place. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an important point, and I think deserves its own section. It is already covered in depth on the conversion therapy page. However, when you insert it, I would appreciate it if you mostly took from the actual pamphlet, found here. I think the Washington Blade is a biased source because it is a gay magazine. I think most of what they said is right, but there are a few facts that aren't exactly right. It especially mixes up reparative therapy with ex-gay ministries by calling them ex-gay therapy. The Just the Facts pamphlet makes a distinction between the two, which is important to me. I think it is always better to have a first-hand source rather than a second hand source, and I will question anything written from the Washington Blade which contradicts what is in the APA pamphlet. I will also question anything that is about conversion therapy and not about ex-gays.Joshuajohanson (talk) 04:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggested split for people section (June 2008)

Tagged section with split proposal. This page needs alot of work, but a big step in the right direction might be splitting the people section into its own page (and also including non-gay/exgay people like Nicolosi who have played a notable part in the movement), maybe something like List of people involved in the ex-gay movement? There is so much content on this article that the references section has over 100 items (and properly cited, it would have much more)....... any thoughts? -- caveman80^{(my 2 cents)} 10:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, but there are several questions that should be answered before that officially happens. One problem that I see is that the word "involved" is too general. What does it mean to be involved? Joseph Nicolosi is definitely involved, but what about Robert Perloff who just gave a couple speeches at NARTH? Is Anne Heche involved because her mother talks about her at Love Won Out conferences? What about other people like David Benkof, Kirk Talley, and Ted Haggard who were never involved in the ex-gay movement, but their denunciation of a lifestyle of pursuing gay relationships despite same-sex attractions is similar to those involved in the ex-gay movement? What about people like Joseph Fielding Smith (presiding patriarch) who lived long before the ex-gay movement? Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm open to suggestions of a better word, but I think it fits the scope of the article best. In the examples you cited (and agreed, this article does have issues about some of the stuff included...)

• Perloff: not familiar with him, but if he gave speeches at NARTH that would make him relevent at least as a brief mention maybe?
• Anne Heche: Anne Heche is not involved in the movement so would not be relevent (unless she had made public statements to that effect). If her mother is speaking on her behalf at ex-gay movement events however, she (Heche's mother) might be relevent imho (if it meets notability criteria).
• Benkof, Talley, Haggard: If they never were involved in the "ex-gay" movement they are not relevent to the article. (or at least belong in their own see also type section at the end of the article?? i dunno) This article is about the 1990s-to-present ex-gay movement, not every homosexual since the dawn of man that had a come to jesus moment and rediscovered boobies. Gay is a modern term and identity, so a person from before there was a "gay" identity couldn't be ex- "gay" identity since there wasn't a gay identity to begin with.

This article is about a specific movement & the people involved, not about all ex homosexuals throughout human history. my 2 cents. -- caveman80(my 2 cents) 23:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)