Jump to content

Talk:George Rekers/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Details

The article discusses criticism of Rekers without actually mentioning his important research- that children of same sex couples are at higher risk of suicide and other related behavioural issues.andycjp (talk) 10:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Propaganda and bullshits are not acceptable, rather truly peer-reviewed research published in prestigeous reliable journals is. --Destinero (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Article should have more detail on who the individual is, his work etc. 82.18.164.15 (talk) 05:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Certainly this article needs to have some scholarly discussion of the man's work, in addition to what the judges have said about him. There might be some difficulty finding actual scholars who take him seriously, since he forms his expert opinions from his Christian beliefs and anti-gay agenda. By the way, what do you call the syndrome we see in so many of these rabid anti-gay people who are gay themselves? Shouldn't there be a link to that, if there's an article on it? 70.112.186.143 (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Eric

At the moment, handling vandalism will likely be the biggest problem. The phenomenon you are referring to is sometimes called Haggard's Law, but that is more of an urban dictionary thing and its wikipedia article was deleted. More generally its a manifestation of Reaction formation.--Milowent (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I just added a link to Unzipped magazine's blog, which gives more information about the means by which the gentleman whom Dr. Reker is alleged to have hired advertises himself for hire. I know blogs are typically questionable as reliable, but this one is an official blog managed by a magazine, which is in turn owned by a major media conglomerate, so I see this as writing with more authority than an independent blog.

I am a little concerned about an invasion of the escort's profile. Anyone else have thoughts on this? Blue Rasberry 00:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is the section titled "ALLEGED"? Rekers has already confirmed that he hired the young boy to be his 'luggage assistant' rather than invite his own young son of the same age. There is nothing "alleged" about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.75.18 (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
What you have done is not acceptable. The blog posting is an attack, one that describes Rekers in extremely derogatory and offensive terms. It should not be used as a source, and neither should any other source that doesn't meet minimal standards of objectivity and journalistic professionalism. In addition, the information you've added is of unclear relevance or usefulness. UserVOBO (talk) 01:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
What I have done may not be acceptable, but it is not a break from the precedent. Here is what it was:

Unzipped, a monthly gay magazine, identified the sex worker as being a particular person on the rentboy.com website based on the quoted description in the Miami New Times.[1]

The defamatory and offensive terms about Riker stated in this article are the application of the phrase "right wing whack job" and word "homophobe." The original Miami New Times article that is the only current source for all the spreading press describes Rekers as follows: "desperate blond comb-over", "looking a bit discomfited", "a standard-bearer of the nation's extreme right wing", and a member of organizations whose activities include "accusing gays of en masse coprophilia". I dare say neither are quite without bias.
As for the information being of unclear relevance or importance, I took precedent from American celebrity Tiger Woods' sex scandal and Preacher Ted Haggard's situations; in both cases, the sex workers whom they hired were non-notable and yet the media released information about them.
The time for this might not be now. If it is relevant, it will appear in more reputable media. I might say the same about the entire allegation. Blue Rasberry 02:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we are going to have a major edit war on our hands here very quickly if the first comments are anything to go by.

As pleasurable as it is to see another christianist hypocrite debunked, and as lacking as the original article was in describing the harm this hateful man has done to gays (not to mention his fake College of Pediatricians) we have to make sure the article is serious and from a NPOV.

That goes for both sides. Christians who hate gays and gays who suffer from their attacks.Panthera germanicus (talk) 05:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed (on all counts). Orpheus (talk) 10:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I won't add anything for a while because I agree that it is important to be as precise as possible. To the above objections, however: - It is now being covered as "straight" news by Huffingtonpost and Daily Kos and BoxTurtle among many, many others. - His "American College of Pediatricians" has been denounced by every single real group of doctors and scientists including the NIH as fake science. Their theoretical background is based on fundamentalist Christian beliefs, not science and this has been thoroughly demonstrated. In the interest of fairness, I'll be making that case quite thoroughly and say thank you, now, to the conservative Christians concerned that his "valuable" work was being ignored. -Family Research Council is hastily removing all references to him as co-founder, researcher, etc. from their website. Missing quite a bit, given their haste and the depth of his involvement. We should definitely make note of that as they are indisputably "notable".

This horrible man has directly caused much persecution, court imposed suffering and suicides of gay teens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.194.231.143 (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we need to retain NPOV, and while describing him as a 'whack job' should not be cited, if the source describes him as a 'homophobe', that needs to be cited, as does the source's explanation about the harm he has done to lesbian and gay people - if only to counterbalance his hagiography.Mish (talk) 12:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like to second the motion that historical references regarding Mr. Rekers' associations and contributions be documented. As noted, the Family Research Council has already edited their page. A quick search on Archive.org shows the original version. Alexsandyr (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Rent boy

Off2riorob, what about my changes did you find tittilating and tabloidish? Tdslk (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, I just had the same experience with you. It's very puzzling that you would remove sourced, relevant material on the basis of it being 'tittilating'. Reker's entire career is about his fight against homosexuality, these facts and allegations quickly piling up are already damaging his reputation, and it's important that wikipedia includes a balanced and factual description of what's happening. You seem to be working against that. Please explain your thinking. --Lockley (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
It being a BLP, I am fine with a little patience. However, I imagine the "rent boy" thing will be winding up in the lede sooner or later. That's pretty much what this guy is going to be known for now... but, as per WP:CRYSTAL, let's wait and see before we go too overboard. Despite my burning desire to expose this worthless bigot for the hypocrite that he is, Off2riorob's reversions are probably fair within Wikipedia policy.
Give it time. --13.12.254.95 (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for commenting, please don't take it personal, it is hard to add content from titilating opinionated editorial reports in an encyclopedic way. I don't know who this person is and my edits are simply made in good faith in regard to WP:BLP policy to protect the living people and the wikpedia. Off2riorob (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

What part of "admitted hiring a companion from a website called Rentboy.com" did you find difficult to understand in the Times article? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Off2riorob, please restore the material you deleted. I am deeply offended by christianists coming in here and thinking they can pervert reality here to suit their own needs just as they have done with our civil rights and human status in the US. Put it back, please and the next time you feel you need to make changes, why not do what I and all the other reasonable people here who care about accuracy are doing and propose the change here first so we can discuss it.

I hate to say it, but once the deleted material has been restored, I think we should have this page temporarily locked down so that such christianist attacks can be avoided92.194.231.143 (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

There are now photos of Rekers pushing the luggage cart while the escort stands by published on the original Miami New Times article as well as other sites. Go and check. The claim that he was seen pushing the luggage cart has photographic proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.39.166.26 (talk) 15:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

He admits to hiring him but not from any specific place, we don't need to add the alleged website, please consider that this is tittilating breaking news from a free newspaper that has been taken up and propagated by LGB sources and we should take care , we are an encyclopedia not a tabloid report. Off2riorob (talk) 19:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you even read the Times article? Are you familiar with the Times at all? Free newspaper?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Of course I have read the times article, if you have another look you will see he does admit to hiring an assistant but the rest is part of the allegations, the original story that is being reported by everyone is from a free newspaper. The Miami New Times. Please lets not tar and feather him until the story has developed a bit and we get more reports. Off2riorob (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Wow. What does telling the truth have to do with tarring and feathering? This is not a christianist party organ, this is an encyclopedia. So now you admit that you know there are reliable sources and you are still stripping things out? Please restore the texts you removed.Panthera germanicus (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Dallas?? I have no idea what you are talking about. The Times reports this fact with no reference whatsoever to any other source: "has admitted hiring a companion from a website called Rentboy.com", it really couldn't be clearer. And by the way, there's nothing wrong with rentboys, so there's no tarring and feathering. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
This is what Rekers states, he does not say where he get the assistant from..Dr Rekers said he had retained the prostitute as a travel assistant for a ten-day trip to London and Madrid last month after a stint in hospital. Off2riorob (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
You must be getting that from a free newspaper of some sort. The Times of London says "has admitted hiring a companion from a website called Rentboy.com". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
This is what Rekers states, he does not say where he get the assistant from..Dr Rekers said he had retained the prostitute as a travel assistant for a ten-day trip to London and Madrid last month after a stint in hospital. Even that comment is putting words in his mouth, he clearly did not say, I rented this prostitute from rent boy dot com, did he? Please take some time and consider that we need to report such issues with extreme care. Off2riorob (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC
Let's try again: what part of "has admitted hiring a companion from a website called Rentboy.com" are you having difficulties in understanding? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Off2riorob, either you are lying or you are misinformed. Put the text back, please. Dr. Rekers was filmed with the young man, he has admitted to hiring the male prostitute(you would have found this at www.joemygod.blogspot.com among many other sources had you bothered to do any real research).

Again, please restore the text and stop editing this to satisfy your own world view. I request you respond to me here, else I shall assume bad faith and restore the text myself.Panthera germanicus (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Panthera germanicus, in advocating for use of blogs for this sort of issue, you show mainly that you don't understand Wikipedia very well. You would do well to learn more, particularly about BLPs. If there is text you want restored, please specify what it is and show the reliable sources that support it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
ec, I appreciate your desires but as a new user please take some time to read our policies and guidelines, especially in regards to living people WP:BLP thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, first of all, I don't edit much because I'm not that confident in my writing sklls. That said, I am not someone who just showed up here yesterday or last year or the year before so when I point out that you are destroying valuable text and provide you with resources to prove your assumptions are wrong, I would very much appreciate it if you would respond to the actual matter at hand and not try to excuse it as 'newbie'

Second, to Nomoskedasticity (hope I spelled that right!) My objection is based on the damage which Off2riorob did to: Section 3 "Rent boy" allegations. Since Off2riorob is pretending not that there are no qualified resources and there are, in fact, here are some. I appreciate your willingness to help here, by the way: Statement from Dr. Rekers to blogmaster at: www.joemygod.blogspot.com, you can find it under the title: Dr. George Rekers, Patron Of Male Prostitutes, Responds To Me On Facebook It is rather long. Second, we have the photos which Dr. Reker has not denied of him and the male prostitute:http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2010/05/photo_anti-gay_activist_george.php Hmm, what more do you want to restore the original text? Jay Leno's comments? The male prostitute's comments? Rachel Madow's site with statement? The Huffingtonpost is not exactly what one would call a "free newspaper" or LGBT biased site:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alvin-mcewen/anti-gay-organization-fou_b_563633.html

I have stated above as have many, that it would be better, given the fast changing nature of the current affairs in this man's life to leave things be for a while and let the dust settle. I have also suggested we make any changes public here on the discussion page (as set out in more than one of the many, many guidelines) instead of just jumping in and changing things around to satisfy our world view.

Look, this one is not going to be taken lying down by either the persecuted LGBT community or the christianists. Better to recognize that and try to work together than to make changes which are not based on research but the desire to bias the biography to fit ones own desires. Personally, I'd be perfectly happy if the biography were restored to the situation prior to 4 May 2010 until the dust settles, but if changes are to be made, then they need to be honest and accurate.Panthera germanicus (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob is correct that that we need to pay close attention to WP:BLP in this matter. Good sourcing is especially important. The only blogs we can use are those associated with mainstream newspapers, or those written by the subject. I see that this story is being picked up by mainstream news sources.[1] Let's use the best of those. In general, we should write conservatively. We don't need to be the first to report every detail. Just the opposite, we shouldn't put anything in here unless it's pretty well-established.   Will Beback  talk  20:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Will Beback, I totally agree. My objection is to Off2riorob just coming in and deleting information without discussing it first or even bothering to do research. I have read the numerous guidelines on living persons and quite agree. I am also well aware, as are all LGBT folks around here that there is a very active christianist set of deletionists and people who edit things to fit their desires. Why can't we all just agree to stop deleting text and leave things be for a bit until the dust settles? I can really see this ending in a situation like with that poor hockey player who died awhile back - the LGBT community is not willing to role over for the christianist editors. I'm willing to just leave things be (after undoing the damage done bz Off2riorob) for a few days - anybody else?Panthera germanicus (talk) 20:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah, too late for the christianists to just claim its us LGBT fanatics and our free newspapers now:

http://theweek.com/article/index/202604/George_Rekers_rent_boy_escort_scandal http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/05/family-research-council-head-h.html?wprss=44 http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/another-anti-gay-activist-accused-of-gay-tryst/19465448 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7117037.ece

Yes, that is THE Times and THE Washingtonpost, not some pretend near-name-alias. Poor as my writing skills may be, I want to see this article not be left as whitewash for the christianist agenda. It needs to be fair and accurate - and that applies to the christianists, too.Panthera germanicus (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, so now I see your game. First, you demanded that I cough up non-free-newspapers, nice big-game players. Great - others and I did that.

But, hey - that's not enough for you. Oh, no, you, speaking no doubt ex cathedra have decided all by yourself that each and everyone is just cut and pasting from the miaminewtimes. I provided you with Dr. Rekers own statement, did I not? That isn't enough? The Times and Washingtonpost do not "only" quote the article - especially seeing as how three different sources on the Washingtonpost website present different accountings. Look, if Wikipedia says water is H²O and every physics book and chemistry book in the world agrees, does that mean it is invalid? Or they all copied from each other? What will satisfy you - and rest assured, you might be able to silence me, but this is not going to go away. Again, what level of evidence do you now require, the old hurdle having been jumped?Panthera germanicus (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

As Will Beback  talk says, use the best quality sources you can find, report in a non titillating, uninvolved manner and report as accurately as possible in such controversial breaking news cases. Off2riorob (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Nobody argues that! The point is, you demanded non-free-newspaper "proof" that the texts you removed were valid. I see there is no way to reach any sort of accord with you. I'm done here for the moment. In the end, the truth will out and your intentional meddling with the facts under the guise of following guidelines won't prevent the truth from being known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panthera germanicus (talk • contribs) 21:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Also, consider taking your time, wikipedia is not a news report, we have the luxury that we can assess situations and say...mmm, well it seems a bit titillating and we don't have to say it was xxxxx, the best paid xxxx xxx in Miami, when perhaps the initial reports are excited and speculative and we may have to correct them tomorrow. Off2riorob (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Which justifies your stripping text out of the biography? How terribly convenient for you. I am trying to play by the rules here by not just putting them back in - which I could, instead by discussing proposed changes here, first. But you just change things around at will and then, after making the changes announce we should just sit back and leave totally incomplete and, given the current state of knowledge and Dr. Reker's own admissions, inaccurate texts up? No, I won't restore what you stripped out without posting it here first and, sadly, I really have no more time right now. But this show of bad faith on your part - by not first stating your intent on the talk page - is exactly why things get into a mess around here so very often. First, post your intention to remove information (especially on an LGBT topic) or to alter or amend information. Then, with consensus, change it.

What is so tough about that? For the last time I ask you to please put it back as it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panthera germanicus (talk • contribs) 21:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

What text? Please post it here, so I can see what you are talking about Off2riorob (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

If I can just say - I modified the text (quite trivially) a while ago without being aware of this discussion. However, it read almost apologetically 'According to so-and-so in The Times Online, he reportedly blah blah blah'. This is The Times, and we do not need to sanitise this, just state what The Times said, as we would any WP:RS, and that is why we use WP:RS, because they do the fact checking in a way we can rely on the veracity of their reporting. That is why they have a certain reputation, and if we start questioning whether the source of a WP:RS is reliable, well, we would need to revise much of the encyclopedia, because that is why we rely on them as sources. OK, we need to have something, because this article is going to be a magnet for people wanting something in here about this, and it would be best we settle on as NPOV a treatment from WP:RS as possible, and draw a line under that as a consensus version until we can revise with hindsight - and in the meantime either protect or be vigilant in ensuring that the content is maintained in as unsensational and neutral a manner as is possible given many people will have strong views on this man. Mish (talk) 21:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Can I suggest that this snetence in the lead "Rekers has been implicated in hiring a male prostitute as a travel assistant. Photos show Rekers pushing luggage" is not that coherent, and all we need to say is that "There have been reports dealing with Rekers' loss of credibility as an anti-gay activist after his being photographed returning from a European holiday with a male prostitute."Baptist minister 'took ten-day holiday with male prostitute' Mish (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The subject has a blog and has posted a comment about this matter.[2] Perhaps most important is the that he denies having sex with his travel companion.   Will Beback  talk  21:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

So it is correct that we are misrepresenting him in the article where is is presently being reported that he said he admitted to getting the man on this website, Rentboy dot com and he denys that, it should imo be removed as presently is assets that he admitted to that. 21:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob (talk • contribs)

Fortunately the article here doesn't assert that he had sex with his travel companion. I support keeping claims about his having had sex with his travel companion out of the article here. As I read the sources, not even his Rentboy has said anything about having had sex with Rekers. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

A person can admit to something in one place and deny it in another.   Will Beback  talk  22:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I think it's probably simpler than that. I think he is only denying that he hired a prostitute -- merely a travel assistant... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that is exactly the issue, this is a case of a titillating report of a titillating report, he has clearly never said, yes I rented a rent boy from rent boy dot com, that is a POV assertion, ascertained from weak reports of a weak opinionated report. We have the luxury of being able to report issues in a responsible manner with a respect for living people.Off2riorob (talk) 22:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Is this in English? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Basically we have this in the article and it is a false representation of the reported content, According to The Times, Rekers admitted to hiring a companion from Rentboy.com for the 10-day European trip to help carry his luggage Off2riorob (talk) 22:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, that is an outright lie on your part. I just read and rechecked the article, and that is an accurate representation of the Times article. "George Rekers [...] hired a companion from a website called Rentboy.com. [...] Dr Rekers said he took the prostitute on the ten-day trip [...] “I can’t lift luggage. That’s why I hired him.”" That's from paragraphs 2 & 3 of the article linked to. There is no possible way that you can honestly claim that the sentence you quote above does not accurately represent the reported content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.42.77 (talk) 07:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
It is important we are accurate, which is why The Times is such a good source. We do not usually give preference to personal blogs over and above independent reliable sources, although we do take them into consideration when they are the blogs of notable figures. So, what the source says is that 'A Baptist minister and leading anti-gay activist faced the implosion of his career and credibility after being photographed returning from a European holiday with a male prostitute.' and 'George Alan Rekers... has admitted hiring a companion from a website called Rentboy.com' and 'Dr Rekers said he had retained the prostitute as a travel assistant for a ten-day trip to London and Madrid last month after a stint in hospital.' and '“I had surgery,” he said when approached this week by the Miami New Times. “I can’t lift luggage. That’s why I hired him.”' That is all the information we have, apart from what is referred to as a claim that Rekers was photographed pushing both men's handling the luggage[3]. That is a claim, and clearly the Times is not treating that as established fact, because it says it is a claim. That is the only allegation, and the only obvious mention of sexual impropriety is in Rekers' own blog, where he denies any. So, we cannot avoid that there has been an effect on his career and credibility (as stated in the source) because we know that organisations he founded, influenced or supported have been busy emoving references to him since this was forst reported. All we need to do is report the Times source accurately, and leave the reader to decide for themselves. Whether we need to include his own refutation of an allegation that was not made in any source cited here is unclear - of we are not covering any reports of sexual impropriety, then why include the assertion from his blog that there was none? It is not for us to take sides on this, but present the sources in a way that the reader can come to their own conclusions. His credibility and career are affected after he was photographed returning from holiday with a male prostitute; he has admitted that he hired a companion from Rentboy.com, he says he needed a travel assistant because following surgery he shouldn't be lifting luggage. That is what the source says, and one will read that and come to their own conclusions. It is not our job to word this in a way that leads the reader to any particular conclusion. Mish (talk) 08:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree this is exactly the right approach. I'll add that the Miami Herald has now done its own reporting on this issue and in its article asserts unambiguously that he hired "Geo" through Rentboy.com. I also think that the article in its current state reads terribly, with "reported" this and "reportedly" that -- the sources are perfectly reliable and there is no need to hedge things this way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree, it reads appallingly. We don't usually do this with reliable newspaper reports, and the individual has confirmed the salient points on his own blog. The claims are that the guy was on rentboy.com, which Rekers seems to have confirmed, and not that he was photographed with him (which not presented as a claim, but as fact), but that in the photograph he appears to be pushing the luggage of both himself and the assistant hired to push the luggage.
The comparison of the FRC websites in time and the assertion that this was changed at a specific point after 2007 is WP:OR and unverifiable (unless somebody made a copy a week ago), however likely one might think it is. The best we can do is cite the source's reaction to these events - and that is why I have replaced the text. Mish (talk) 08:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
What we now also seem to have, which does contradict the reports that Rekers' admitted to hiring the man from Rentboy.com, is that Rekers now claims that he did not know his escort was a prostitute from rentboy.com until midway through the holiday. "Dr. Rekers found his recent travel assistant by interviewing different people who might be able to help, and did not even find out about his travel assistant's Internet advertisements offering prostitution activity until after the trip was in progress." [4] which contradicts what the guy he hired says himself. We cannot ascertain which version of what happened is correct, and so we may want to avoid the suggestion that he hired the escort from rentboy.com, and stick to what is agreed, that he hired an escort who happens to work as a prostitute available through rentboy.com, as that does not appear to be controversial and is affirmed by the media sources and by Rekers. Mish (talk) 09:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I am glad to see that efforts are being made to keep this article focused on the truth. When editors swoop in and through things out which are offensive to their own personal belief system (or add things to push their own political agenda) it makes for a very bad situation.

The matter is not helped any when you have an editor who is too high-handed to bother with discussion pages. Once the dust settles on this, I intend to add a section on each of his positions, organizations and claims. We know, for instance, that the NIH (not just some liberal blog) has publicly stated that Dr. Rekers' American College of Pediatricians is not a genuine professional board but a cover group to push the christianist agenda. We have the public statement of the judge in Florida who was so upset by his expert testimony (paid for by the State of Florida) being based on zero science and purely christianist goals that she rejected his entire argumentation and that of the State. We have...well, anyway, once things quiet down I want to make sure that there is a solid entry on his misdeeds and the damage he has thus done to the human status and civil rights of homosexuals. I will post every suggestion on the discussion page first, I will careful to ensure that every citation is from a non-free-newspaper. Wonder if the National Institute of Health is notable enough for those editors here driven by the christianist agenda? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panthera germanicus (talk • contribs) 09:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Truth does not come into this, as we will never know the truth (and peresonally I do not believe there is any such thing as truth, especially in the media); all the encyclopedia requires is accuracy, reliability and verifiability - not some truth we may never know. I understand the concern, but this is a WP:BLP, and there are much more stringent guidelines and policy for these articles than other articles. Things in BLPs can be removed without discussion if they contravene certain basic principles - in fact, it is recommended that they be removed as quickly as possible and then discussed. This is why it is important that what is written is accurate and verifiable as laid out in reliable sources - to protect the encyclopedia, to ensure the subject is dealt with reasonably, and to ensure that removal of material cannot be justified. The person involved has certain rights, and the encyclopedia has to ensure those rights are respected as well as not avoiding documenting the salient details - whatever we might think about the individual concerned, this is unavoidable if we are to operate with integrity. Mish (talk) 09:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • How about this? "Rekers' credibility as a leading anti-gay activist was questioned in the media after being photographed returning from a European holiday with a male prostitute. Rekers said the escort was hired as a travel assistant for a ten-day trip to Europe last month, because following recent surgery he couldn't lift his luggage. Media reports focused on how the man appears to work as a male-prostitute who can be booked online through Rentboy.com." Mish (talk) 10:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Mish, I understand and accept the need to be accurate. I don't think a philosophical discussion of truth is useful - my education is in the natural sciences and my view of truth is probably far more rigid than required. What is important is that we not, in the name of NPOV discount things which are known to be true.

An example. You wrote: 

"Media reports focused on how the man appears to work as a male-prostitute who can be booked online through Rentboy.com."

This is very nicely written, except for "appears". He doesn't appear to work as a male-prostitute, he says he is one. Nor does Dr. Rekers deny booking him online through rentboy.com. I understand the concept of being neutral, however facts are facts and we don't need to say "appears" when the truth is indisputable.

I also accept that there is a need to remove improper text from biographical articles without longw winded discussion when they are libelous or not fact based. My objection is to the manner in which this article was edited to minimize the damage to this christianist and his movement. I also find the high handed manner in which those of us who pointed out statements made in media which are normally recognized as notable and orderly sources here on wikipedia were totally brushed aside.

I firmly believe the best thing would have been for all of us to have left the article alone until the dust settles (one reason I have not changed anything nor made any additions). Anybody who thinks we gays are just going to let the christianists abuse NPOV and the guidelines on biographical entries to white-wash this and promote their hateful agenda is in for one heck of an edit war.Panthera germanicus (talk) 10:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Good morning. I hardly think this requires saying .."Rekers' credibility as a leading anti-gay activist was questioned in the media after being photographed returning from a European holiday with a male prostitute." and Panthera, we need to be careful with things like this, you say.. "He doesn't appear to work as a male-prostitute, he says he is one.".. has the man made any statements? no? Off2riorob (talk) 11:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Also far as this turning into an advertisement for rentboy dot com... Rekers on his website...Off2riorob (talk) 11:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

"A recent article in an alternative newspaper cleverly gave false impressions of inappropriate behavior because of its misleading innuendo, incorrectly implying that Professor George Rekers used the Rentboy website to hire a prostitute to accompany him on a recent trip. Contrary to Internet stories based on this slanderous article, following medical advice Professor George Rekers requires an assistant to lift his luggage in his travels because of an ongoing condition following surgery. His family, local friends, and even another university professor colleague have offered to accompany him on trips to assist him in his travel. Dr. Rekers found his recent travel assistant by interviewing different people who might be able to help, and did not even find out about his travel assistant’s Internet advertisements offering prostitution activity until after the trip was in progress. There was nothing inappropriate with this relationship. Professor Rekers was not involved in any illegal or sexual behavior with his travel assistant."

And Dr. Reker's version of this situation is absolutely to be trusted? Which version? The one in which he admits to hiring Jo-vanni Roman from Rentboy.com? The one in which he tries to deny everything?
Off2riorob, this is precisely why I keep saying we need to leave this alone until the dust settles. I have made no changes. I have entered no text. I won't make any changes nor will I enter any text until after posting it here on the discussion page and letting people comment on it, first.
That said, yes, Roman has clearly stated that this is his profession and that he was hired by Dr. Rekers from that site. I am respecting NPOV by not posting anything right now, why are you pushing your obvious agenda? Why are the words of Dr. Rekers perfect truth to you when you reject reporting in THE TIMES, Washington Post and other serious media?
I am open that I oppose christianists. I think you should be honest about your point-of-view, too. False witness is forbidden to Christians, whether through commission or omission.Panthera germanicus (talk) 11:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

He doesn't name the (as he refers to as a) slanderous article, we have this opinionated editorial from the dallasvoice dot com, The premier media source for lesbian gay bi-sexual and trans-sexual texas-official blog of the dallasvoice http://www.dallasvoice.com/instant-tea/2010/05/04/anti-gay-activist-george-reker-outed-after-hiring-male-escort-from-rentboy-com Off2riorob (talk) 11:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

More illiteracy. Yes, in fact the man has made statements, it simply appears that you haven't bothered to read them. Miami Herald: '"Nor did he pay me enough for sex", Geo said. "I was getting about $75 a day," Geo said, adding that he and his friends usually charge $300 to $500 a day for sex. Geo said he is a Miami Dade College student who became a prostitute to pay his bills.' Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Precisely. Off2riorob, look - obviously we don't agree. My position is that we have to wait until this has settled down and then do battle with each other here, on the discussion page, over every jot and title in the article. It does not make the case for your alleged concern for NPOV and respecting biographical entries (both very valid concerns) that you both make changes as well as accept the statement of one side in this matter as facts while rejecting any evidence presented by the other sides, regardless of source.
Please, just stop making changes and entries. Leave the whole thing be until the dust has settled. We are headed towards a temporary lock-down at best and a really nasty, bitter, hateful edit-war at worst. If I can resist putting my view of "truth" into the article right now, then I should think you can, too.Panthera germanicus (talk) 11:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

A couple of small comment, thanks. The comments support Rekers claims, those comments do not support that he hired him as a prostitute or that he went to rent boy dot com either... Both Rekers and Geo, who declined to give his real name, deny they had a sexual relationship during their 10-day journey to Spain and England.."In all honesty, I did go on the trip with him," Geo, 20, told The Miami Herald on Wednesday. "He was setting me up as a companion. In all honesty, he's a very kind family-values man." Rekers, 61, said via e-mail that he hired Geo as "an assistant to lift his luggage in his travels because of an ongoing condition following surgery."He added: "Dr. Rekers found his recent travel assistant by interviewing acquaintances. There was nothing inappropriate with this relationship. Professor Rekers was not involved in any illegal or sexual behavior with his travel assistant." Off2riorob (talk) 11:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

A couple of comments. Sure, 'appears' could be lost, although it seems trivial to me whether the it appears that the guy is a hooker rather than he is a hooker. We do not give blogs priority over internationally renowned reliable sources such as the Times. We don't do it. Period. if you want to elevate blogs above national newspapers, fine - take it away and discuss it on WP:RS, and until the encyclopedia changes the policy on that, forget this. The blog might be supplemental, but it does not trump the Times. As for this: "Rekers' credibility as a leading anti-gay activist was questioned in the media after being photographed returning from a European holiday with a male prostitute." well, this is what the Times report was focused on - so it does need saying, and why that should be. This is what is noteworthy - not that he hired a rent-boy on the cheap to carry his bags - but the effect of his actions. No reliable source has suggested that there was anything inappropriate in this. That is why we can only report it as it is, and let the reader make his own mind up. It is significant that the guy was a twink, because if he'd not been a twink there'd never have been a story. I don't see why we need to include a report in a local newspaper about an e-mail to blog issuing a denial by somebody apparently writing about himself in the third person - a denial of something that has not been asserted in any reliable source I have read (that there was impropriety). As long as we make no assertions, and stick to what is reported in reliable sources, there is no need to reproduce denials from less reliable sources - we are not a mouthpiece for Rekers to try and solve his problems with people's incredulity. Mish (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Mish, thanks. I know (and agree) that established newspapers are more reliable than partisan blogs. The thing of it is, when something like this breaks in 2010, it's the blogs first, then the newspapers. Which is very much why I wanted people to stop editing for a while and let the dust settle.

The whole thing doesn't matter at this point - NBC carried it, among others and several 'real' newspapers are now also covering the details of yes, he got him through rentboy, yes the guy is a male prostitute, yes, yes and, sadly, yes. I hope my request for a full protection until the dust settles is accepted. This is really only causing bad feelings and not helping things at all when the christianists keep making changes to promote their agenda.Panthera germanicus (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The only UK media I have found this so far, apart from The Times (already cited), is the Independent: [5] and the Daily Mail [6] Mish (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement of WP:OR about FRC site

This statement: "Subsequently, the Family Research Council removed the fact that Rekers was a member of their founding board from their web site" is not verifiable, and because it relies on a comparison of a source now and three years ago, is original research based upon a primary source. It does not belong here. If it were something that featured in a reliable souce commenting on this, then it could well be valid, but as it stands it is speculation. Even then, it is unclear that it beloings here, in an article on Rekers, but as it relates to actions possibly taken by the FRC in relation to this, then it would belong in an article on FRC, where their relationship with Rekers is discussed, no? Mish (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The whole point in my asking for a protect (and us getting a semi-protect) was because all requests for people to sit back and let this just play out first fell on deaf ears.

Wouldn't it be better to just stop editing for a few days, let things settle down and then take a fresh look at it? All these continuing edits are doing is to give me ammunition to go back and argue for a full-protect. Biographical entries, as is continually pointed out here are special. We neither improve the reputation of the encyclopaedia nor our ability to work together on topics on which christianists and the glbt community do not agree with these continued edits on a rapidly changing matter. Note, please - I am not making edits.Panthera germanicus (talk) 15:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll add my two cents: The website still states that he was a founding member: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WU10E03 (retrieved 11 am EST, 5/6/10) So can we remove the part saying the website no longer acknowledges his role? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.78.179 (talk) 15:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, first of all, does semi-protect mean anything to anybody?

Second, thanks to internet caches and archives, we can easily prove that FRC immediately after the scandal hit went through their entire website and deleted all current references and links to Dr. Rekers and his work, his projects, his books, etc. They are pretending to have had nothing to do with him the last 10 years which is stupid because we have documentation showing otherwise. But, hey - I'll not be putting any of that in right now because the article is semi-protected and it really, really is not a good thing to be editing a biographical article when every hour brings a major new revelation, attack or counter-attack in the media.Panthera germanicus (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

So, the new entry is incorrect then. While the introductory page from 2007 says he was a founder board member, the current page doesn't, but the ststement issued about Rekers does acknowledge this. If it is easy to prove that the FRC revised its website after 4th May 2010 to expunge any reference to him, then it would be helpful to see the evidence that proves it. I'm not deleting the entry, I've done so once for good reaon, and it has been restored, and now I have tagged it as being dubious. Until somebody can show it was changed this week, and explain how this is not WP:OR, the tag remains, and the onus is on the inserter to come here and discuss the change. If they do not do that, I will be deleting it again. Mish (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
It's currently sourced to The Advocate, which seems like a reasonable secondary source for citing the removal of his name from the website ([7]). Is there a problem with that sourcing? MastCell Talk 16:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't see anything in the Advocate article that talks about his removal from the FRC website. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Next-to-last paragraph: "In a Tuesday afternoon post, Unzipped identified the profile of the RentBoy, titled 'Boynextdoor/Geo.' By Tuesday evening, Family Research Council had removed Rekers' name from its website." MastCell Talk 16:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
oops... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't know the Advocate, but if it is a WP:RS that's fine for me, as long as our text reflects what they say, using them as the source, rather than our own WP:OR in citing the diffs between 2007 & post 04/05/2010. Mish (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
My apologies, I thought the statement had been re-inserted with teh original links, I see now it was reinserted with this new link. I have removed the tag. Mish (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I've also swapped the order of the sentences, and simplified the wording so the two sentences work together.Mish (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Yea, looks better now. Off2riorob (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I have thought a lot today about the possibility that many of the folks editing right now might be making an assumption about "gay" blogs which is inaccurate.

Straight sex blogs are aimed at purient interest. Gay blogs need not be. I don't think anyone would ever confuse pam'shouseblend, for instance, with the 'free-newspapers' with which quite a few sources are being dismissed. It's just a thought, but a lot of heterosexuals and conservative Christians really don't have the first clue about us or our lives. Kinda shows, actually in some of the comments here.Panthera germanicus (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This is wikipedia not an us and them soapbox. Off2riorob (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Off2riorob, I am going to assume good faith here and ask you just what exactly you mean by that last comment. Thank you.Panthera germanicus (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Just tone it down and focus on content and not contributers, on this page the word christianist appears seventeen times, all of then said by you, that is soapboxing. Just keep your personal opinions about other editors to yourself and you will be fine. Off2riorob (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
One reason I keep saying that we should leave this alone right now is because things are changing constantly. The University of South Carolina, for instance, just erased Dr. Reker from their website.http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/05/06/22317
Things are changing far too rapidly here for us to even begin to paint an accurate picture. Why not just restore things and be patient? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panthera germanicus (talk • contribs) 19:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Rekers found Lucien via Rentboy.com, right?

Let's try to get to grips with the Rentboy.com thing. A variety of perfectly respectable newspapers assert unambiguously, on the basis of their own reporting (i.e., not in a derivative way via reference to other sources) that Rekers found/made contact with Lucien on Rentboy.com: [8], [9], [10] for starters. What exactly is the difficulty with reporting this element of the story in a straightforward manner? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It is strongly denied by the subject that he met anybody on rentboy dot com. There is only one report and all the other reports are of that. It is clearly not correct to assert that he got his travel companion from rentboy, personally I don't see any need to assert that weakly claimed content at all. IMO, we need to take extra care in regards to this whole story, the big issue to me is that the young man has come out and said that no sexual activity took place and that Rekers wanted him as a companion and that Rekers was a decent family man, so as there are actually no allegations of any impropriety at all. It is also not necessary to add weight to the story, we have all the points included and have reported it in a very fair balanced way, it does not take a blind person to consider the report and come to a conclusion does it. Off2riorob (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to have to conclude, once again, that you aren't even reading the sources I am providing here. Each of the three provided above asserts on the basis of its own reporting that he used Rentboy.com. Really, did you even look? As for whether "impropriety" took place -- this new article is rather interesting. (I think "impropriety" is very much the wrong word: gay sex is not improper, nor is the "long stroke".) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
There is only one report. You want to add as if a fact that he definitely got this young man from Rentboy dot com and I dispute the reports or quoted comments assert that as a clear fact. It just is so weak a claim and would also need attributing correctly and it would clearly need the denials to balance it, when you have done with all the attributing it will expand the section to a state where it will be starting to be overly large and detailed which will have blp issues in itself. Off2riorob (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay, now I know you aren't reading the three articles I have linked above. Would you care to explain your disruptive approach on this talk page? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I am not being disruptive at all, I am simply adding my civil comments.If you feel strongly that there is some content that should be in the article that is not then write it and offer it here for discussion. We have a statement from the young man that no sexual activity took place and that Rekers was a decent family man and that Rekers employed him as a travel companion, we really need to portray those points fairly. These comments from the young man are the balance to the titillating story and if he sticks to his comments then this will likely have little legs, it is difficult to portrays this as a homosexual rent boy sex holiday when that is strongly denied by both people in the story. Off2riorob (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Gay sex qua sex is not sinful, improper or wrong. It sure is notable, however, when a christianist who has built his career on stripping us of our human status and civil rights, has called us every filthy name in the book and gone on and on and on and on about how betterosexual straights are turns out to be banging a rentboy. This is why there is so much opposition from Off2riorob, I think - what may not be, shall not be for the conservative Christians. Speaking of which, I do wonder just how we integrate the fact that his university has erased him.....Again, as always: I strongly feel we need to put things back the way they were, let the dust settle and then tackle this in a few weeks. Oh, and Off2riorob, you do know that I could be editing this article, right? My forbearance here is because I think it is damaging to Wikipedia to make changes to a biographical article when so much is in flux, not because I am in consensus with you. I am not and I am documenting it here so you won't be able to protest that nobody objected to what you put in when I argue later that it be corrected to reflect the facts.Panthera germanicus (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Panthera, this is your opinion and actually is a talkpage BLP violation, betterosexual straights are turns out to be banging a rentboy from where have you got this from that he was "banging a rentboy"? Or is it just your idea? Off2riorob (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Off2rio, since you don't want to read the articles yourself, let me help you out:

  • The Independent: "Rekers met the sex worker on the website www.rentboy.com, where he appears under the alias "Lucien" and claims to be "sensual," "wild" and "up for anything"."
  • Miami Herald: "George A. Rekers -- an officer of the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) and a retired University of South Carolina professor -- hired the young escort known as Geo on Rentboy.com , a gay-sex website."
  • The Times: "George Rekers, who sits on the board of a national organisation dedicated to changing the sexuality of gay men and lesbians, hired a companion from a website called Rentboy.com that offers clients a wide range of choices, from “rentboy” and “sugar daddy” to “masseur”."

Is anyone else having trouble with this? Three separate reports from perfectly reliable sources, right? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I have trouble with it, write something and offer it here for discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
To replace the third and fourth sentences in the Rentboy section: "Rekers hired the man via the internet site "Rentboy.com" to accompany him on a 10-day European vacation." Simple, straightforward, with impeccable support from reliable sources. But really, before you continue to monopolize the discussion with posts that clearly show difficulty with reading comprehension, let's hear what some other editors have to say. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Please stop being rude about me, you personal comments and accusations that I am illiterate and that I have difficulty with reading comprehension are starting to upset me. Off2riorob (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, if you make an effort to read carefully, you will notice that every comment has described your contributions, not you. Exactly as the policy requires. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, I can find the texts at the links you cited here. No trouble at all.

Off2riorob, thanks for you note on my talk page. I do feel strongly that conservative Christians frequently change things around in articles to present their views as opposed to NPOV. Why aren't you willing to just let this one sit for awhile? I'm done for the evening. Unless I see some consensus in the morning - regardless of whether it is on "my" side our "yours", I'm going to ask again that the article not be edited for a while or at least that somebody come in and try to moderate this mess.Panthera germanicus (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I do realise there are some strong personal positions here, personally I am an independent, I am not affiliated to any group or organisation. I am here attempting to protect both of these living people and keep the article as high quality as possible. Right now imo we are reporting this issue very fairly and in an encyclopedic way. I also want to keep this article as it is for the time being, we have the basic detail and lets see what is left when the dust settles. We can add stuff but we can't repay the damage that can be done to a living person by the addition of a weakly claimed controversial issue. Off2riorob (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: Miami New Times has a new article up after interviewing the Rent Boy this morning (Thursday may 6). George Rekers Is a Homosexual, Escort Says (Miami New Times, May 6, 2010). It is reported by "Lucien" that he gave sexual massages to Rekers including rubbing his penis, and that he has decided to speak up after learning about Reker's double life. There's little question about what happened here, regardless of whether we can definitively say the young man was hired via rentboy (if sources confirm it), or that he simply has a profile there and Reker denies hiring through the site (if he has).--Milowent (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Well there are clearly many issues, the young man is now changing his story and claims that he gave him massages, if you want people to believe you, I find it is a good idea to tell the truth all the time. Still no banging then? I am still very strong on the issue that we should take a lot of care with our reporting of this and it is clearly going to be a good idea to take our time what we add as the story could take a left or a right turn at any moment. Off2riorob (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Off2riorob, now you are just plain being sententious. He didn't need to be "banging" him for it to have been sex between two men. Look, for the umpteenth zillion time, we need to revert the article back to status quo anti 3 May, leave it be until the dust settles and then have our delightful little edit war if you simply can't accept reality. Or maybe, by then, you will have seen that what you are trying to defend is indefensible.
Either way, you aren't going to get away with this and it is not good for any of us. I surely am not feeling any great increase in my trust towards "independent" editors who happen to be using christianist terminology and doing their best to do damage control to one of their best liars.Panthera germanicus (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Changed story? Was there a point in which the travel assistant said he hadn't massaged his client? Ultimately, we're not here to decide who is right. We just summarize what is in reliable sources. That may include contradictory views. We can report that X say "blue" while Y says "green", and even that Y said "green" but changed his mind and later said "yellow". However, I suggest that we avoid trying to follow every twist and turn of this story in real time.   Will Beback  talk  20:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I think this is all correct, and while we have to be careful with BLPs, and despite the attempts to privelege the learned professor's changing story over the changing story of the rent boy, we now have several reliable sources saying he hired a male prostitute via Rentboy.com, despite his denial that he did so. We have the escort saying it. Until we have a good source that gives clear details that some other escort site rented him the boy, then we have to take this as the best information about where he got him from. We ought really to state that the rent boy himself has attested that sexual massage was included in his employment, as well as handling baggage. Mish (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I will be able to quote the subjects denial from his personal website and any claims that he rented the young man directly from the rent boy dot com organization will need to be attributed to the original actual person that has claimed that to be true. That is either the organization (rentboy.com) or the young man or the subject of the BLP. I don't know but it will need correct attribution and then I am going to add the denials and such to balance that claim. We should also take care not to bloat the section overly with excessive detail that the section overpowers his life story. I don't think the rent boy (young man) is actually quotable as saying that he was hired through the rentboy.com site, I read he said when asked that he looked down at his knees and said that Rekers should be able to tell you that" which is not a clear comment, would editors that want to add that he rented him directly from this rentboy,com please present the quotes that support that. There are only three people that can say that he got the young man through the rentboy site, the rentboy,com people who I don't think have said anything, the young man who perhaps id quotable as saying that, and the subject Rekers who has categorically stated that he did not get him at Rentboy, as far as I can see. Please if you have citations to change my opinion please add them here. Off2riorob (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, his life story was fairly cloaked until now. He's gay. Big whoop. Anyway, I agree with Off2riorob that there is one only primary reporting source here, the Miami New Times, and the story is mostly being repeated and editorialized on elsewhere. The earliest New Times article (May 4)([11]) stated that "Both men deny having sex on the trip, and emails exchanged between the two before their jaunt are cautiously worded." Surely they intended to exclude full service massages from their definition of "sex" so I see no "changed story" from Rent Boy. The article also says "Yet Rekers wouldn't deny he met his slender, blond escort at Rentboy.com — which features homepage images of men in bondage and grainy videos of crotch-rubbing twinks — and Lucien confirmed it."--Milowent (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Thats right that I read also, the report said he did not deny it, that is not a comment in support though is it, do you deny you got this man at rentboy... no comment...report, he did not deny it..newsspeak that is then reported as a chinese whisper and arrives in the british independant as ..he rented the young man from rentboy. com. Rekers has very strongly denied it and commented that it was libelous. Off2riorob (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
What you were asking was about where Lucien said this - and there you have it, as requested.Mish (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
So, this is it, the original claim and is not a quote and is also not a straightforward claim..[12]
In his interview with New Times, Lucien didn't want to impugn his client, but he made it clear they met through Rentboy.com, which is the only website on which he advertises his services. Neither Google nor any other search engine picks up individual Rentboy.com profiles, any more than they pick up individual profiles on eHarmony or Match.com. You cannot just happen upon one.
Lucian did not say he was hired through rentboy.com did he.. according to the MiamiNewtimes claimed that although the young man did not want to impugn his client he made it clear they met through Rentboy.com.which is the only website on which he advertises his services. Reskers strongly denied that and said that because of its misleading innuendo, incorrectly implying that Professor George Rekers used the Rentboy website to hire a prostitute to accompany him on a recent trip. Contrary to Internet stories based on this slanderous article,he knew anything about his website untill halfway through the holiday and called the story libelous. Off2riorob (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • At some level common sense has to prevail. But I also think the section of the article right now is fine, it says the Rent Boy is on rentboy.com, but does not confirm that's how the hire took place. Its not necessary to connect that dot at this point.--Milowent (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Fascinating, simply fascinating. The longer this goes on, the less tractable the position of those trying to protect the poor professor and blame it all on teh gayz, the more reputable sources chime in that, yup, they had sex, yup, Geo was hired out of rentboy, yup the professor lied, lied and lied and, of gosh oh golly me, some folks are now beginning to ask whether this was paid for out of tax-free funds...

It is simply no longer true to maintain that there is only one source for all of this. We have the actions of FRC. We have the actions of his university. We have the statements both by him and by Geo. That dawg just won't fight, no matter how hard his apologists want it,too. You know, we have now put enormous time and effort into this and all we have achieved is that this article is now on my permanent, personal watch list and the moment the dust settles, I will be in here presenting material to be edited into the article and quite a bit to be taken out. Since an edit-war between the "individual" perspectives and those of us who live in the fact-based world appears inevitable, would it not be better to just not fight it out now and then again in a few weeks? By then, those apologists for Dr. Rekers might well have been forced by the events to accept that there is no way to present an NPOV biography without the damning details.Panthera germanicus (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This might be another gay-in-denial story, or it might be a smear launched by homosexuals at an opponent of theirs. All contributions to this article should be mainly interested in which is true, not with pushing one agenda or another. Specialy needed are:

-Sources for the statement that he found the person in question on rentboy.com. This is relevant since one who is anti-gay would not look for a luggage handler there.

- Confirmation of the rentboys statement that he was hired for sex. Anyone can say a thing like that. In the smear scenario, an unscruplous gay might have decided to lie about his new employer. But how likely is it that he could have been employed legitimately? More info about the rentboy's previous employment history could help.12.149.136.2 (talk) 22:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:TRUTH. AV3000 (talk) 23:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Not to mention WP:QUEERASATHREEDOLLARBILLNOTTHATTHERESANYTHINGWRONGWITHTHAT--Milowent (talk) 23:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

2nd rentboy

  • I am noting the existence of this story on the JoeMyGod blog, noting a claim of someone else that they once gave Rekers a sexual massage. I don't think this has been reported on by any reliable sources yet and should not be considered for inclusion in the article yet.--Milowent (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Fascinating. If true: it sounds like he really enjoyed this experience. Good -- I'm happy for him. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Fabulous, simply fabulous. And how conenient, too. Please, please,please nobody put this in the article until established. Joe is not totaly convinced and I have yet to see this anywhere.
This is why I keep saying we need to wait and not just jump in.Panthera germanicus (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The 2nd rent boy story has moved onto Gawker[13], who reports on an interview they did with him, as well as Dan Savage[14], and towleroad[15], who both simply reposted the original source allegations.--Milowent (talk) 04:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Typo

In the rent boy bit, it says: "He make it clear that he had met Rekers through Rentboy.com and denied that he had been hired to carry luggage.[17]" I think it's meant to say "He made it clear..." -- made, not make. But this page can't be edited by users at the moment, so if a mod would like to fix it, that'd be good. Also, not to start anything, cos I see the furore up the top, but a mod may wish to consider "He claimed that he had met Rekers through Rentboy.com and denied that he had been hired to carry luggage.[17]" -- the 'made it clear' sounds a little like the matter was settled by this guy's word. And if the above is anything to go by, I'd say it's definitely not settled.

If one wants to include the idea that the rent boy was clear about where he was hired from, the sentence could read: "He stated clearly that he had met Rekers through Rentboy.com and denied that he had been hired to carry luggage.[17]"

Anyway, if POV isn't being changed by anyone -- mod or not -- at the moment, then I really would like to see the typo changed. Really sux that the edit-discussion war has prevented us from spelling correctly (even I have to use the word 'sux'). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.146.36 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for spotting the typo - I've corrected it. Regarding the wording, it reflects what the original source (the Miami New Times) said: "In his interview with New Times, Lucien didn't want to impugn his client, but he made it clear they met through Rentboy.com, which is the only website on which he advertises his services." Now, this isn't quite the same as saying "he claimed" or "he stated clearly" because it's not at all clear from the New Times' wording that he made a direct statement. What I think we can do, though, is qualify the statement by attributing it to the New Times: i.e. "According to the Miami New Times, he made it clear that he had met Rekers through Rentboy.com..." Hopefully that will fix the issue you raise. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Procedural Question - having been told rather high-handedly that gay blogs and "free-newspapers" don't count at wikipedia as sources, I'm curious as to reporting on CNN, NBC and the Rachel Maddow show? Do they count?
I ask because, once the dust settles on this, there is going to be one hell of an edit war unless we really can reach some consensus here on this page (which has not been easy up until now).
It is perhaps not quite relevant to the article, but speaking as a human being, I think it is important to note that the viciousness of the attacks on Geo, both from some here as well as in the press, from the christianists (who have already hired lawyers to attack him) is not exactly making the case for Christian love and charity and "hate the sin, not the sinner". Could we all please remember that Geo is not the bad-guy here?Panthera germanicus (talk) 11:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I think NBC & CNN are fine. Blogs are a problem because they may not employ the same level of fact-checking as national media outlets, that is all. Mish (talk) 12:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I also agree that some of the things said about Geo are despicable, and these have been echoed here - if by that you mean that the word of a professor should be taken as more reliable than a rent boy, simply because he is gay and sells sex for a living. Not sure how far it is relevant to comment on thsi specifically, unless Rekers himself says this. So far it seems to be those who want to 'defend' him that have made this argument from what I have seen, not Rekers himself. It is reminiscent of so much abusive behaviour of those with power towards the powerless - don't believe him/her, I am powerful, he/she is just a child/woman/hooker/rent-boy. While it is not the purpose of this page to discuss issues of abuse and injuctice, some of the comments made here that reflect that way of thinking are disturbing, although I am unclear they compromise any specific policy or guideline (in a way that they would if the comments related to an editor contributing to the discussion). That is why I have tried myself from suggesting Rekers is a vile hypocrite who preys on the vulnerable people his own ideology only serves to make more vulnerable - because that would be a POV, and we seek to maintain NPOV. Mish (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Contract

There was a written contract between Rekers and Roman, which called for Roman earning $75 per day in exchange for spending eight hours a day with Rekers, carrying his luggage, and providing one massage per day.

Read more: [16] Off2riorob (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

  • One hour nude massage per the Anderson Cooper clip. They flashed the contract quickly on the screen but I haven't seen the text.--Milowent (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    I didn't hear nude specified.(massages are usually without clothes though, aren't they) In this link here in the video the woman says that according to the FRC when the story broke they did not even know that rekers was a founding member and they had to go check their records to find out if he was. Off2riorob (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    From the link in regards to the contract she says, for 75 dollars a day he must carry the bags, provide a massage for at least one hour every day of the trip in their shared room, plus spend at least 8 hours a day with him including two meals. Off2riorob (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
From the sound of it, they could have saved themselves the bother of checking the records, and checked their own website... Mish (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, they likely went into panic, but they did make a very honest sounding announcement.Off2riorob (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
$75/day sounds very cheap... though I guess it doesn't include the cost of food and transport (Italy's a seriously expensive place). -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
It is cheap, is that a contract that rentboy dot com supplies? I have not looked at the website, do you have to pays your money to rentboy dot com or is it just an introduction site and then you do your own deal? Off2riorob (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Tell you what, you can try hiring your own rentboy to find out. Let us know how it goes. ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Well. I just went there and it is a bit hot, pimp yourself now I clicked on that link but you need to mecome a member and I tried to rent a rentboy but again not allowed without membership and then there is a billing link but that seems to be a redirect..quite exciting. Off2riorob (talk) 23:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I bet this whole controversy must be great news for the website - you can't buy publicity like that... -- ChrisO (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
No you couldn't, they must be minting it and the rent-boy is selling his story and the newspaper that broke the story is at national coverage and the reporters that wrote the original story...ALL minting it. I went there and joined up, for the benefit of investigation only, basically it is just go there and add your locality and there is the telephone number of the rent-boys and then you just phone them, there is no contact at all between the client and the rent-boy on the website..that is likely what the rent-boy means, when he is saying.."Well, that is the only website I am advertising on" but there would have been no communication or confirmation that he got the number there, the rent boy just gets a phone call asking how much and so it must have been Reker's personal contract. Are the contract details worth adding? I would say they were. 75 dollars is like half the British minimum wage, very cheap if there are no extras.Off2riorob (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

George Rekers is a homosexual, escort says

The rent boy contradicts Rekers's contentions that he hired the escort to help carry his luggage and that he was trying to save the soul of a lost sinner. Lucien decided to speak out after a heart-to-heart with a friend, Michael, who alerted him to the grim realities of his client's anti-gay activities. Lucien, who had originally declined to speak about the trip, now says he can do little good by protecting his erstwhile, fundamentalist client. The rent boy has told Miami New Times Rekers is a homosexual who paid him to provide body rubs once a day in the nude, during their ten-day vacation in Europe. 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...Lucien decided to speak out after a heart-to-heart with a friend, Michael, who alerted him to the grim realities of his client's anti-gay activities. Lucien, who had originally declined to speak about the trip, now says he can do little good by protecting his erstwhile, fundamentalist client.George Rekers Is a Homosexual, Escort Says (unsigned content posted by User:66.40.56.242

Preceding content is cut and copied from the provided link. Please take care not to post excessive copyrighted content that is likely a copyright violation. Off2riorob (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. However, I think you're in danger of overlooking the fact that there are two people involved in this affair. The article reports Rekers' account but not that of "Lucien" (whom it doesn't even name!). It's a gross violation of neutrality and BLP to present the statements of one side without any mention of the statements made by the other side. I see you've twice reverted my addition of "Lucien's" statements [17]; would you mind explaining why? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Why should we name lucian? Lets give him a break, your additions were excessively tabloid and titillating. Are you serious, or is this just in reply comment at the silly blog stub? Off2riorob (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
"Why should we name Lucien?" Come on, the guy has a name/pseudonym. You can't just refer to him throughout the article as "the man". What possible reason could you have for omitting his chosen name? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
As per BLP we are supposed to write content convervately and with respect to peoples privacy, your addition is IMO the exact opposite of that, presently we have not added his name and IMO it adds nothing and as he is clearly a one event issue perhaps we should not bother nameing him, he appears to have multiple names anyway. It is a simple story, we have more or less got it added in a decent way, young man goes on holiday and so on, all of that he has a nice bum and the young man said the subject is a homosexual is totally over the top. She if editors support your desired addition, I don't and see them as having issues as regards BLP policy, if consensus is against me I will happily take the article off my watchlist and move on, it you thing the name should be added then staart a straw poll here and get support, I don't see the value. Off2riorob (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO's desired content

The Miami New Times reported in its May 4, 2010 issue that on April 13, 2010, Rekers was photographed at Miami International Airport with a man reported to be a twenty-year-old "rent boy".[2][3] Rekers claimed that the man was there to help carry his luggage since he had had recent surgery and was unable to carry it himself. [2][4] Rekers admitted to hiring the companion for the 10-day European vacation as a "travel assistant" and denies any impropriety. The man, named only as "Lucien", was reported to be available for hire through the internet site "Rentboy.com", where his profile advertised his "smooth, sweet, tight ass" and "perfectly built 8 inch cock (uncut)" and described him as "sensual," "wild," and "up for anything".[2]

Rekers was quoted as commenting, “If you talk with my travel assistant ... you will find I spent a great deal of time sharing scientific information on the desirability of abandoning homosexual intercourse, and I shared the Gospel of Jesus Christ with him in great detail.” [5] The incident was covered by media outlets worldwide, including the Associated Press [6] BBC News [7] and The Australian.[8] The comedians Stephen Colbert and Jay Leno made the news the subject of monologues on their shows. The Miami New Times followed up its exposé with an interview with "Lucien", who told the newspaper that Rekers was "a homosexual who paid him to provide body rubs once a day in the nude."[9] He stated that he had met Rekers through Rentboy.com and described him as a man who "likes younger guys to hang out with."[2]

  1. ^ "Meet Homophobe George Reker's Rentboy Hooker, "Lucien"". Unzipped. LPI Media. 4 May 2010. Retrieved 4 May 2010.
  2. ^ a b c d Penn Bullock; Brandon K. Thorp (2010-05-04). "Christian right leader George Rekers takes vacation with "rent boy"". Miami New Times.
  3. ^ "Meet Homophobe George Reker's Rentboy Hooker, "Lucien"". Unzipped. LPI Media. 4 May 2010. Retrieved 4 May 2010.
  4. ^ Dallas voice-official blog
  5. ^ Giles Whittell, "Baptist minister 'took ten-day holiday with male prostitute'", The Times, 5 May 2010
  6. ^ Associated Press story, May 5, 2010, Report: Anti-gay leader took trip with prostitute, http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/05/05/1615060/report-anti-gay-leader-took-trip.html
  7. ^ BBC News, Baptist minister denies rentboy claim, May 6 2010, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8665812.stm
  8. ^ The Australian, May 6 2010, Anti-Gay Preacher George Rekers Took Rentboy on Holiday, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/anti-gay-preacher-george-rekers-took-rentboy-on-holiday-as-an-aide/story-e6frg6so-1225863027782
  9. ^ "George Rekers Is a Homosexual, Escort Says". Miami New Times. 2010-05-06.


Isn't user ChrisO bound by an arbitration agreement not to edit any BLP's? I saw this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Justallofthem

If this is the case, ChrisO should not be working on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.39.166.26 (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It quite clearly refers to Scientology topics only. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
And who might you be, anonymous editor? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Its like a very poor tabloid report. Personally I also don't think it is correct to name Lucian, his name adds nothing of value and the sexy details of his website profile are pure titillation. The content is totally excessive, Leno and the other guy mentioned it on their show, so ? what is notable about that? It is just fluff enlarging the content but actually adding nothing Off2riorob (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

To avoid confusion, most of the above was already in the article. What I added was the following:

  • "Lucien's" name/pseudonym. He was previously referred to only as "the man", which is just silly.
  • "Lucien's" description of himself.
  • Colbert and Leno's mention of the case on their shows, which illustrates how popular commentators have responded to it.
  • The important new story mentioned by the anon poster above where "Lucien" gives his side of the story for the first time.

As I've already said, it's a gross violation of NPOV and BLP to focus on one side's version of the story and suppress any mention of the other side's account. Suppressing "Lucien's" own chosen name/pseudonym is particularly bizarre. That's how he identifies himself publicly; how can it "add nothing of value"? I'm willing to leave out "Lucien's" description of himself if you think it's too titillating, but the name and "Lucien's" side of the story are non-negotiable - it's simply not acceptable to censor one side of the story. I've raised the issue on the BLP noticeboard to get some outside views. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Well you seem to have only added the tittilation, you failed to add the comments that he made yesterday that the subject only wanted him as a travel companion and the the subject was a good family man, the content you added is tabloid in nature and pure sexual titillation . Off2riorob (talk) 00:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Let's be clear about this - our role isn't to defend or attack people, it's to report what they say. The section already says that he was hired as a companion. Rekers has given one account of what that work involved. "Lucien" has given a different account. It's not up to you to censor "Lucien's" account because you think it's "titillating". We're supposed to report what has been said without passing judgement on it. Unfortunately you don't seem to have realised that. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

In an interview the next day (Lucian) said he gave Rekers massages. That would be a decent addition. Off2riorob (talk) 00:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's remember that this is a biography of Rekers, not of Lucien. Lucien's self-description is not really relevant here. While it's relevant to say that he's a prostitute, and to give his age, we probably don't need to go into details about his other attributes.   Will Beback  talk  00:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
OTOH, I think it's logical to use the name that appears in reports. "Lucien" has cooperated with the media on this story, so his involvement isn't a secret. Avoiding his pseudonym (and it should be identified as such) is impractical and likely to lead to confusion on the part of readers.   Will Beback  talk  00:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. I suggest the following, then: restoring the name, omitting the self-description and rewording the last sentence as follows, with the same sourcing as before: "The Miami New Times followed up its exposé with an interview with "Lucien", who told the newspaper that Rekers had "paid him to provide body rubs once a day in the nude." He stated that he had met Rekers through Rentboy.com and denied that he had been hired to carry luggage." -- ChrisO (talk) 00:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I have been looking around and he clearly has sold the story to the paper and there are some suggestions that there is more to this story that meets the eye, some suggestions of a set up, but I think we will find out more in the coming days. Lucian is not his real name, if there is support to add it it should be clear that it is his working identity or whatever it is, his real name is being published around also. Off2riorob (talk) 01:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
The New Times points out that the website in question "is covered with images of naked, tumescent men busily sodomizing each other." I don't know how you can unknowingly hire someone from there and not know what you're getting into (pun intended). At any rate, I agree with you that "Lucien's" real name shouldn't be publicised here. He's chosen to identify himself only with a pseudonym and I see no reason not to respect his wishes for that degree of privacy. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
It is not at all clear that he was actually hired from that website, no one has actually said that clearly at all. Where are you claiming that content is quoted, all we have so far is that Lucian didn't say that specifically but was said to have made it clear, which is not a clear statement at all. The subject has also very strongly made a statement that he did not even know about that website until the middle of the holiday. Even the free weekly paper that has paid him is taking care with their comment and they add words like Rekers allegedly like the long stroke which is funny when the are reporting their paid story teller. I suggest having a good look at this citation and consider the quality of this source which is the only source of this titillating allegations. http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2010/05/george_rekers_is_a_homosexual_says_escort.php Off2riorob (talk) 01:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
From the source: "In his interview with New Times, Lucien didn't want to impugn his client, but he made it clear they met through Rentboy.com, which is the only website on which he advertises his services... As a favor to Rekers, Lucien recently removed any wanton sexual descriptors from his Rentboy profile." [18] Additionally, from UPI: "An anti-gay psychologist says he hired a young Florida man from Rentboy.com to carry his bags on a European trip." [19] That's pretty clear. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Thats right, that is not a clear statement that he was actually bought there, it is fluffy and editorialized. There are a few reports that have Chinese whispered the story but there are only three people that can say that he did, Lucian has been fluffy about it, the subject has strongly denied it and the website has said nothing at all. Off2riorob (talk) 01:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I think we have different definitions of what the word "clear" means... There are various sources which say unequivocally that Rekers used Rentboy.com. For instance, the Pink Paper: "George Rekers, 61, hired 20 year-old Geo from prostitution site Rentboy.com to accompany him on a European trip around Britain and Spain, last month." [20] Where is the "fluffiness" there? -- ChrisO (talk) 01:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
As it is a big issue it needs to be corectly reported and attributed, there is only one report of this story, all the other reports are of that, there is no clear statement that the living subject of this BLP actually got this assistant from this rentboy dot com and as I said the subject very strongly denies that he even knew about the website, the fact that the pink paper has said he definitely got this man there is simple journalistic licence and makes a good read, we owe the subject of this BLP more than that. Off2riorob (talk) 01:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
You're being tendentious. There are multiple reports that clearly state the facts of the matter and your objections are essentially down to your personal opinions rather than what the sources are saying. That's original research and can't be taken into account. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Well you don't appear to actually be discussing or bothered about my worries at all, as you have simply added disputed claims, we are all responsible for our additions and imo your additions to the content are not what we should be adding to BLP articles. I have tried to keep the content to a high quality but I will not war about it and I will remove myself from the issue and remove the article from my watchlist. Off2riorob (talk) 01:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I've gone some way towards meeting your concerns. I've not included "Lucien's" description of himself, and I've followed the exact wording of what the New Times reported in relation to the Rentboy.com connection. I haven't noticed any reciprocal willingness on your part to compromise, regrettably. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • WTF?: "I have been looking around and he clearly has sold the story to the paper and there are some suggestions that there is more to this story that meets the eye, some suggestions of a set up..." Off2riorob, you are going off the rails at this point a bit I am afraid. Aren't you one of those editors who like to cite that BLP concerns apply to talk pages too? Where is your evidence that Rent Boy sold the story and that the whole thing may be a setup. The guy is gay. Big whoop.--Milowent (talk) 02:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

There is more to the story. Reker was on speakerphone talking to Lucien in the presence of two reporters: http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2010/05/things_rekers_said_to_lucien_w.php 216.39.166.26 (talk) 05:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO, I like your suggested text. Personally, I think it is silly to leave out the pseudonym of the male prostitute and feel strongly the text which Off2riorob has removed twice now should be in the article.
That said, I have argued from the beginning that we really need to let this just sit for a while, until the dust settles. Revert it back to pre 3 May and everybody not do anything in a period of time when the accusations and counter-accusations are flying thick and fast.
I've resisted the mighty temptation of editing or changing anything and won't until we have a fairly stable situation regarding good sources.
Off2riorob, well, if it's consensus you want - I, for one, am very very extremely displeased that you took Chris0's text out twice and the only reason I have not put it back in is because I said we shouldn't be messing about with this biographical article until the dust settles.
Wouldn't it be easier for all of us to work together if you accepted that there is considerable disagreement with your approach here and the only way to resolve this is not by continuous changes-deletions of an article? It is not the appropriate way to deal with this.
Frankly, at this point I am convinced that you are doing this out of a hidden agenda. Your continuous deletions and revisions make clear that you are not adhering to all the numerous guidelines you keep throwing in my face as a defence for why your entries are valid and my positions and research aren't. So what's the agenda? I've been open and honest here, maybe if you were, too, we could find a way for all of us to work together.
Or not. Don't think when I do come back to this after the dust settles you will be able to argue that everybody shared your opinion from the beginning - that is why I am documenting my extreme displeasure with your high-handedness here.
Again, a last time: Please, put Chris0's text back into place and restrict your editing on it to discussing the matter with him here.

Panthera germanicus (talk) 06:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

To be fair to Off2riorob, the text has now been in the article for a few hours without being removed and he's said above "I will not war about it and I will remove myself from the issue and remove the article from my watchlist." It's a bit unfair to criticise him under those circumstances. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Chris0, if it stays that way, great. I have argued from the very begining that we should not be attempting edits on a biographical artikle when things are so unsettled and it has annoyed me tremendously that he has continuously changed things to present them in his own private light.
After the dust settles, I shall come back to this and, posting first on the discussion page (as one really should) see if I can't put together a NPOV but also ruthlessly accurate description of the horrors this terrible man has committed against the GLBT community and his hypocritical little trip to Europe with his bag handler. Unless you or somebody else by then has already got it well documented, there is just too much temptation to the christianists here to practice their revisionism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panthera germanicus (talk • contribs) 10:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Rent boy says Rekers is homosexual not gay

I have replaced the term 'gay' with 'homosexual', as the source does not say the rent boy says he is gay, but is a homosexual. There is a difference. Clearly, whatever his sexual orientation, Rekers is not gay, he is anti-gay, and has spent many years campaigning against gay identity and trying to avert people from expressing being gay. He has never identified himself as gay, and neither has the source. I also question whether this sentence needs to be given this much weight over and above other information (such as Rekers' statements) by placing it in the lead? It needs to be in the body of text where it can counterbalance Rekers' own statement. Mish (talk) 10:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is - as I keep pointing out - that things are changing very rapidly on this whole matter. Geo (I like that name best) has since given several interviews which, if not differing in the central points, do, however, not seem to distinguish between "gay" and "homosexual". Actually, speaking as a practicing homosexual of the gay profession, there is no difference. Unless I missed one of those très modern political correctness thing-ys which come and (thankfully) go.

The article is begining to look less like a mad hatter ran through it with his scissors excissing every fact and more like something one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. Still, I don't think the sexuality of this horrible man can or should be minimized - he has destroyed countless lives of gays over the decades and been, personally, responsible for some of the most un-humane legislation imposed in the non-Islamic world since the Nazis. And that is saying something.Panthera germanicus (talk) 13:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You cannot judge others by your standards, just because you identify as gay does not mean others who are attracted to the same sex do. Neither can you impose your political identity on somebody else (the LGBT community seems fond of this with all sorts of people). Especially not in a BLP. If he does not identify as gay, which he doesn't, and the source cited describes him as a homosexual, then that is what it has to be. It is a fundamental prinicple in WP:MOS#Identity that we respect this, and one we as LGBT editors trot out all over the place. Just because we don't like somebody does not give us the licence to be hypocritical by not applying the same standard to this individual. He may be a man sexually oriented towards men, even a MSM, and this has been described in terms of him being homosexual, which is not a political/social identity - but as an anti-gay activist, advocate for reparative/conversion therapy, somebody who has never identified as gay, but sought to normalise homosexuals in a way that identify as pseudo-heterosexuals rather than gay, describing him as gay is grossly inaccurate by any standard. Mish (talk) 13:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Mish, sorry - yes, I am a native English speaker, but, yes, I left the US before political correctness showed up. My training is in the natural sciences and I haven't a clue why gay, which is defined in the dictionary as "homosexual" and "homosexual" which has "gay" as a synonym now are two totally different concepts to politically correct Americans. I'm happy to conform to modern English usage, just, what on earth is the difference between the two? Not being snarky.

Now, as for my political agenda. First, I have neither posted nor deleted nor changed one thing here and have, from the very beginning said I wouldn't while things are changing so rapidly. Second, I feel it is enormously important that the truth be told about these vermin. Sure, respect NPOV, but facts are facts and the sort of whitewash which Off2riorob has attempted here over the last days made me furious. There is a tremendous difference between NPOV and presenting the facts in such a manner as to pretend that being accurate means saying "alleged" and "some have suggested that" when we have the facts to hand. Not being argumentative here and am very thankful that people with better writing skills than I have were able to intercede and stop Off2riorob from turning this into a hageography of the poor wee Dr. and his battle with teh gayz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panthera germanicus (talk • contribs) 15:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It is quite simple. We do not refer to gay people as homosexuals, because it tends to be considered derogatory by people who identify as gay. However, there are people who are homosexual who do not identify as gay, and who try to find ways of dealing with their homosexuality in other ways. Given they do not identify as gay, and see that term pejoratively, it would be innacurate to describe them as gay - and the only other term that seems to apply is homosexual. If the two terms were synonymous, we could use them synonymously, but as homosexual is considered a pejorative (because of its associations with seeing homosexuality as a pathology) then clearly they aren't synonyms. Especially as 'homosexual' applies to men and women, and while some lesbians may identify as gay women, most identify as lesbians. Regardless of this, the source that is cited describes Rekers as a homosexual in the context of being anti-gay. SO, let's be accurate in how we deal with sources, if he is described as an anti-homosexual gay man, we would say that, but he is not, he is described as an anti-gay homosexual. That seems to hit the nail right on the head. What is emerging is that he is a (up till now) closeted homosexual who has worked to destroy the lives of many gay, lesbian and transsexual people. We cannot write it that way, but we can detail where this is stated in the sources. On a personal level, I have no wish to have him identified as gay, because he chose to deal with his situation in a thoroughly reprehensible way - I spent many years trying to deal with my own issues before I 'came out', but not once did I ever feel I had to work against the LGBT movement, nor was I in any way homophobic, nor that I had to hide myself from myself or others - quite the opposite, I have always been accepting, and outspoken when necessary. if he turns around and 'fesses up and says "yeah, I admit guys, I'm gay really, I'm sorry I was such a dick, please forgive and accept me" - then I'd have to reconsider this; but as long as he persists in denial, he has no place being referred to as gay. Mish (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Mish. I am reminded yet again why I chose the "hard" sciences instead of the social sciences - I read your words and accept them, tho' I am puzzled as to how we know all these things. But then, I was never in the closet - lucky to have good parents, lucky to escape the US to a saner country as a young man. This is why I like to post suggestions on discussion pages instead of just writing text - I'll have to pay attention to this because I now see why they aren't synonymous in 2010 USA.

Thanks again - I'm gonna let this one be for a while then come back to it when the dust settles.Panthera germanicus (talk) 16:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_Rekers/Archive_1&oldid=1136760256"