Talk:Homosexuals Anonymous

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Homosexuals Anonymous was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
February 8, 2011 Good article nominee Not listed
Did You Know

Verbatim Quotations[edit]

Besen (2003)[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Page 262: The GLBT community must rise to the challenge and equal the fervor of the ex-gay ministries in terms of outreach. I have been to many ex-gay conferences across America where there was virtually no presence by the GLBT community. At these conferences ex-gay groups were free to disseminate their propaganda with no one present to offer an alternative point of view. Occasionally, groups such as Mel White's Soulforce are on hand to offer a counterbalance, but the GLBT presence at Exodus, NARTH, and Homosexuals Anonymous events is spotty and inconsistent. The GLBT community must marshal the resources and the will to take on these groups on their home turf. ... I believe that GLBT religious organizations must go on a crusade to make sure every person involved in an ex-gay ministry is aware of an alternative point of view.
Page 265: Another, extremely controversial way the GLBT community can precipitate the end of the ex-gay experiment is to dispatch undercover teams to catch ex-gay leaders engaging in not so ex-gay behavior. Imagine a team of young, attractive men and women outfitted with hidden cameras and tape recorders. Many of these contraptions are small enough to fit in a pen or notepad. These operatives could be dispatched to every ex-gay ministry in the nation to see whether the leaders try to seduce them. Simultaneously, a deal can be cut with a network or cable television show to air the juiciest parts of the videos.

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

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

Haldeman (1994)[edit]

Haldeman, Douglas, C. (1994). "The Practice and Ethics of Sexual Orientation Conversion Therapy". Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 62 (2): 221–227. 

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

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

Haldeman (2003)[edit]

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

Pages 688–689: Gay men who are most likely to be inclined towards doctrinaire religious practice are also likely to have low self-concepts, to see homosexuality as more sinful, to feel a greater sense of apprehension about negative responses from others, and to be more depressed in general (Weinberg and Williams 1974). Such individuals are vulnerable targets for the "ex-gay" ministries, as they are known. Fundamentalist Christian groups, such as Homosexuals Anonymous, Metanoia Ministries, Love in Action, Exodus International, and EXIT of Melodyland are the most visible purveyors of conversion therapy. The workings of these groups are well documented by Blair (1982), who states that, although many of these practitioners publicly promise change, they privately acknowledge that celibacy is the realistic goals to which gay men and lesbians must aspire.
Page 689: From this ministry sprang Homosexuals Anonymous, a 14-step program modeled after Alcoholics Anonymous, which has become the largest fundamentalist organization in the world with a unitary antigay focus. Lawson, in attempting to research the efficacy of Cook's program, was denied access to counselees on the basis of confidentiality. Nonetheless, he managed to interview fourteen clients, none of whom reported any change in sexual orientation. All but two reported that Cook had had sex with them during treatment.

Jones and Yarhouse (2000)[edit]

Jones, Stanton; Yarhouse, Mark A. (2000). Homosexuality: the Use of Scientific Research in the Church's Moral Debate. InterVarsity Press. pp. 135–136. ISBN 9780830815678. 

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

Kell and Camp (1999)[edit]

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

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

quotes from HA in lede[edit]

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

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

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

If it is to be retained, then it should be in quotes as there was a solid discussion on this as noted on DRN by the closing reviewer. --Scientiom (talk) 13:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
please see discussion above.Coffeepusher (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
A discussion barely attented by only 3 editors is not consensus, there was already solid consensus on this as noted on DRN. --Scientiom (talk) 13:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Wait a minute, it seems that the sources presented are not even linked to this group! In which case the paragraph must be removed. We cannot say "HA regards.." when that's not what the sources say. --Scientiom (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Where does the sources not say that? I am currently reading "and homosexuals anonymous..." in the citation. That's how secondary sources work, they aren't primary they are secondary and talk about the group.Coffeepusher (talk) 13:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

I think the above paragraph should be reinstated to replace the current sentence. it is not only well referenced, but lays out the exact belief system of HA.Coffeepusher (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
although I would replace "mainstream view" with "scientific consensus" in the last line, but that is one woman's opinion.Coffeepusher (talk) 13:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I see your point but to me "mainstream view" is preferable given the phrase "scientific evidence" is a few words later. What I really dislike is the current lede paragraph which I think is more suited to a second paragraph. How about...

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

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

I think this sequence is preferable, first describing HA in its own words before the reasons conversion therapy is unsupported. They could even be made a single paragraph. Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Very well written draft. Two suggestions: Perhaps we should quote from the sources more directly so that no controversial phrases appear to be in Wikipedia's voice, and secondly I do think that 'mainstream' may be unnecessary to mention. I'd support the draft with slight amendments, but do feel free go ahead and put it in. --Scientiom (talk) 14:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Quick question. What are we suggesting to replace? I would like this to replace the first two paragraphs of the Lede (as it covers similar content) but keep the third paragraph about the founding of HA.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely, the third paragraph is needed and should be retained, in my view. EdChem (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Well, one place you can find it is in WP:YESPOV, a section of WP:NPOV. EdChem (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I seriously have never heard people talk about things being "in wikipedia's voice" before...and I edit Scientology articles.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Scientiom, is there a specific passage that you would like to be a direct quote. Based on the section that EdChem has given us it appears that everything is properly attributed to the point that no mistake will be made as to who is endorsing which statements. Is there a specific revision you would like to request?Coffeepusher (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

no, the statement says that "HA regards homosexual orientation as 'sexual bokeness' that may be 'healed' through faith in Jesus christ" which is true and cited by a reliable source. Please see wikipedia's verifiability rules. Statements in articles should come from secondary sources, not primary sources whenever possible. You will see the discussion above about the use of scarequotes and why we have done it for the Lede.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
It must be shown to be the opinion of the person. You must see that any reader will see the quote marks as statements by HA themselves. Govgovgov (talk) 15:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually I read them as scarequotes, and a proper use of scarequotes according to wikipedia's manual of style. In addition to being scarequotes they are also terminology derived from the source and the source is given. The section is both faithful to both the subject of the article and the source of the idea, and attribution is properly given.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
additionally, right now there is a current consensus on how quotes should be used, specifically those quotes you are challenging. As you can see from the discussion above, we have been working with this exact issue for a little while and have come to an agreement on what is to be done. Now I don't mind you being WP:BOLD but since your boldness was working against the current consensus the original form should probably remain as is unless you have moved one of the other editors of this page.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that it is very misleading, tantamount to lying to the reader. Is there somewhere I can go to dispute this? Govgovgov (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok, so the first step would be to wait. I would give it a day or so to see if someone involved with the former consensus on the page agrees with your assessment. The reason you do this is that it shows you were trying to work within the community first and gave it a good faith effort. Next you can go to the request for comment page or any of the other dispute resolution pages and ask for someone to look at this. Finally, if you feel that you have not been treated fairly you can go to the administrator notice board and see if there is a subsection from that page which will better solve the problem. It is my recommendation that you do not post on the ANI as the administrators do not typically get involved in issues like this on that board (it is reserved for problems which are probably going to lead to administrator ban's etc.), but there may be a page on that board which will help you. The first thing to do is wait though because otherwise it looks like you are just escalating the issue without giving time for the community process to work...a day should be long enough, and don't edit war because then you suddenly become the bad guy and most community pages do not treat edit wars well.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll wait a day or two then go to DR if it doesn't work out. Govgovgov (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
glad I could help. also, perhaps you should post exactly what you want the change to be and why so that this community can discuss the exact changes. Something like "I propose we change '...xxxzzzxxxzzxxx' to '...xxxzzzxxxzzZZxxx' because 'blah blah blah'." That talk page style tends to generate more community discussion than just citing wikipedia regulations at each other.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok I'll do that, thanks. Govgovgov (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Specific sentence[edit]

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

To start the discussion, I believe we should keep the sentence as is. I appreciate Govgovgov's concern and have checked the HA homepage and I have not found anything that contradicts that statement. Whenever the words "critics allege that..." preface a statement it is usually followed by something that would be denied by the subject. In this case I believe that HA does believe and in fact publicizes that they believe homosexual orientation is sexual brokeness that may be healed through faith in Jesus Christ. For that reason I find no reason to preface the sentence.Coffeepusher (talk) 02:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I also think that they believe that homosexual orientation is sexual brokeness that may be healed through faith in Jesus Christ. However, the quote marks and language itself in the sentence make it look like they have said those exact words. That's my only problem with it. Govgovgov (talk) 03:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

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

They did at the time of the last consensus, which is why it is in quotes. I don't know if they rephrased it, moved it, or removed it since but they are still run the same and still try to cure gays with conversion therapy. Thanks Jenova20 (email) 21:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
The phrase "sexual brokenness" and the term "healed" are both directly quoted from the source referenced at the end of the sentence. EdChem (talk) 11:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
That clears that up then Jenova20 (email) 21:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
No, the problem is that it looks like HA are being quoted when in fact it's an author's opinion of HA that's being quoted. It should be attributed to that author rather than effectively pretending to be quoting HA. Goo86 (talk) 00:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
"The author's opinion ..." - the source is not an opinion piece. It is written by Julie Scott Jones, an academic and published by Ashgate Publishing, an academic publisher. Reading the preface makes it clear that it is a report on ethnographic research. In other words, we are talking about a clear reliable source and the identity of the author is not relevant. It is an uncontroversial statement that is supported by a suitable reference and needs no attribution beyond the citation. EdChem (talk) 02:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
It does when it appears that HA themselves are being quoted. This isn't complicated - we can't lie to the reader. You can write "It is widely believed" or something like that; we're just not allowed to effectively lie in this article. Goo86 (talk) 02:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

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

You're deceiving or effectively lying to the vast majority of readers who don't check the source. Goo86 (talk) 03:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
actually it is consistent with wikipedia's MOS.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually it clearly breaks it - Wikipedia:MOS#Attribution. Goo86 (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I have requested further input in this section: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#New editor at talk:Homosexuals Anonymous. EdChem (talk) 03:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to file a sock reportCoffeepusher (talk) 03:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I am interested in outside views on the content issue being discussed here, irrespective of whether Goo86 is a sock of Govgovgov / Acoma Magic. I don't follow what the MOS concern is here, but I could be wrong / misunderstanding, and an issue raised by a sock can still be a valid issue. EdChem (talk) 03:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
The MOS concern is derived from what I linked to in my previous comment. Although quote marks aren't around the entire sentence, the whole sentence is still taken from the author and therefore needs to be attributed, per that guideline. Goo86 (talk) 03:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I agree that we probably need an outside opinion. Although I would say that the sock issue does play into this because all we have is one very opinionated person causing a lot of noise. Effectively we have been talking to the same individual about the same issue and they aren't budging even though there is a consensus among the rest of the editors. The fact that they not only sock, but were banned for just this behavior should play into how much attention we give them.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The consensus just means more people need to read up on MOS. I think common sense is also an issue. I hadn't even read that section of the policy before you said that MOS is being followed, yet it was still clear that deceiving the reader was wrong. I'm certainly not interested in attention, I wish people would leave me alone to improve articles. Goo86 (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
According to WP:MOS#Attribution:

The author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be named; this is done in the main text and not in a footnote.

So, your comments seem to require that the quotation to be (implicitly) a full sentence. The dispute sentence is:

HA regards homosexual orientation as "sexual brokeness" that may be "healed" through faith in Jesus Christ.

So, let's compare to the source sentence:

Organisations like Exodus International, National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) and Homosexuals Anonymous offer 'treatment' for homosexuality and ultimately 'cures' through a rejection of the 'homosexual lifestyle choice', counseling to locate the 'cause' of the 'sexual broken-ness', and intense Biblical study. Celibacy or marriage are seen as possible means to 'cure' so-called 'sexual brokeness.' Homosexuals Anonymous apes the twelve step program popularise by Alcoholics Anonymous, through offering a fourteen step program to 'cure' 'sexual brokeness'.

The phrase "sexual brokeness" clearly comes from the source but not as part of a sentence from the source. "In Jesus Christ" is not in the section I have quoted but the section is dealing with christian fundamentalist and protestant fundamentalist groups and discusses Biblical study, which fits entirely with their faith being in Christ. The word "healed" is not used directly, so I would agree removing the quotation marks around it or changing the word to "cured" - which I suspect I avoided originally as it is a much more loaded term. Remember also that HA adopts a modified 12 step program approach, all of which start with faith in a higher power to deal with the addiction, so I don't see how HA would dispute that (a) homosexuals are sexually broken in some sense (hence the need to become heterosexual or celibate) and (b) that faith in Christ is a part of the process of change. Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 04:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how many times I have to explain this for it to stick, but this'll be my last post anyway. I agree with everything that the source says and how it characterises HA. However, by putting quote marks around these words and because of the language of the sentence, it deceives the reader into thinking that HA has been quoted as saying those things. No source has been provided that they have used those words and so this misattribution must be fixed. Goo86 (talk) 04:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
ok good. We get your point, we all disagree with you but we get it. The outside source (below) also stated that they agreed with you that it did give the impression that it was terminology that HA uses, however they stated that there wasn't a problem as long as it didn't contradict the organizations principles which you have stated it doesn't. If someone else comes in and agrees with you then we can revisit this thing, but if not this might be a good time to drop the stick and slowly walk away because it is beginning to look like you have more than an editorial stake in all this.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I've fought to death much less than this, so it's an editorial stake combined with a personality disorder. Bye! Goo86 (talk) 04:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Saw the AN post. Coming in totally cold (I know nothing about this organization and have given only a brief glace to the debate here), those quotes do give the impression that "sexual brokenness" and "healing" are terminology used by the organization. If that accurately reflects their views, I see no problem with it, though I am not especially familiar with this specific instance. -- LWG talk 04:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It accurately reflects their views but no source has been provided that it reflects their terminology and the article is pretending to be quoting from them. That's the problem with it. Goo86 (talk) 04:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
you can check their website [1]. The quotes are there because they are a direct quote from the cited source.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Giving that website a quick glance-over I don't see anywhere where they describe homosexuality as "sexual brokenness". At least with their public face they seem to be presenting themselves as an alternative lifestyle choice for homosexuals. Again this is just my first impressions. -- LWG talk 04:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Goo86 has been blocked as a sock of banned user Acoma Magic.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Addictions and recovery project[edit]

I started a thread about including Homosexuals Anonymous and other groups on the addictions and recovery project page. Wanted to mention it here in case any editors had opinions on way or another. - Scarpy (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)