Talk:Love Won Out

Holy apostrophe and semicolon misuse, Batman! I corrected a few errors, I'm sure there are more. Not sure whether to capitalize the quotes from the protester signs. 35.9.6.175 (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Emily

This is not homophobia

Homophobia is an irrational fear of homosexuals. This organization teaches love for the homosexual (regardless of choices they make on sexual behavior) while taking a firm stance on traditional family values. Just because Truth Wins Out thinks it is homophobic, doesn't make it so. You need a neutral, reliable source to claim it is homophobic. See a similar discussion at Talk:Focus_on_the_Family#Homophobic_category. Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No, preaching love of homosexuals doesn't make it not Homophobic, and the literal meaning of hpmophobic isn't what is in use hear so Bringing it up is intellectually dishonest.Kairos (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "The literal meaning isn't what is in use"? By what definition do you classify Love Won Out as homophobic if not the dictionary definition? Do you have a reliable source saying it is homophobic? This source should not be self published. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here is a reliable source (San Jose Mercury News) talking about a Love Won Out event where there were people protesting the group for alleged homophobia. How does that grab you? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The protests were not for alleged homophobia, but for false advertisement. Disagreeing with Love Won Out because the protestors don't think people can change their sexual orientation is not the same thing as claiming Love Won Out has an irrational fear of homosexuals. Even so, San Mercury News reporting the protestors says Love Won Out's conferences have false advertisement is not the same as the San Mercury News saying Love Won Out has false advertisement. Merely disagreeing with the gay rights movement is not sufficient to be categorized as homophobic. Calling it a "no-brianer" (edit summary) isn't sufficient either. Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

One of the protesters' signs read "Homophobia: Now that's a choice." How does the word homophobia not involve the word homophobia?

The "See Also" is not saying "Love Won Out" is homophobic. It is saying that issues surrounding homophobia are relevant to the article on Love Won Out. I just don't see how you could possibly deny that. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can deny that the mere suggestion that someone can change is relevant to an irrational fear of homosexuals. A reliable source reporting that a protester carried a sign with the word homophobic in it is not sufficient. By nature, signs carried by protesters are often exaggerations. To help you see where I coming from, how would you feel if someone found a reliable source that reported a protest where one of the signs carried the message "Homosexuality is a sin" and decided that would be sufficient to list sin in the See Also section for the homosexuality page? I don't know about you, but I would be horrified and would quickly remove it. Yes, a lot of people think homosexuality and sin are related, and it is discussed briefly on the homosexuality page, but that isn't sufficient to get it listed in the See Also section. The same is true for Love Won Out and homophobia. Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh, well the Homosexuality article does have a See Also to Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day saints, and you and I both know how the LDS church feels about homosexuality... Actually, that link seems really out of place, since there is no link there to Homosexuality and Christianity, Homosexuality and religion, etc. So that is a little fishy, I must say...

Also, for the record, as Metatron Cube explained before, homophobia does not mean "an irrational fear of homosexuals".

I see your point, though. <shrug> I dunno, you and I live in entirely different realities, so it becomes difficult to discern fact from opinion. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

incomprehensible

The article contains this sentence, 'The ministry exists to help men and women dissatisfy "the (non-biological) condition of Male and Female Homosexuality" to understand that same-sex attractions can be overcome.' I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Could someone re-write this so that it makes sense? Skoojal (talk) 07:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Protests and Palin

Protests against the group and its connection to the church of Sarah Palin were in the news today. 61.195.43.209 (talk) 02:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think I dropped what I was doing, voted for Obama, and then volunteered to go door to door? The thought of that horrible witch in the White House if something happened to McCain....well I don't believe in God, but it put the fear of God in me. :P Oh, and someone burned down her hate church the other day, whoever it was I thank them. Themeatpopsicle (talk) 01:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Reads like an advertisement

This article is polluted with vague statements that basically give this organization high praise:

Its purpose is to exhort and equip Christian churches to respond in a Christ-like way to homosexuality from the "Biblical point of view."

"..struggle with unwanted sexual attractions"

I could go on, can anyone help fix this? Pointers? Themeatpopsicle (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

First pointer would be that this organization is entitled to describe it as it sees itself, as expressed through reliable sources, but that its critics are equally entitled to describe it as they see it, from their perspective. See WP:YESPOV--that's really about the only way to handle a contentious subject like this. The solution to any imbalance is to add sourced criticism, not remove the organization's own description of itself. Jclemens (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

So would it be acceptable to write an article about Nazis or Communists or human sacrifice cults by copying their pamphlets verbatim and using quotation marks and filler material? I'm sure they have some wonderful things to say about themselves, yes? Themeatpopsicle (talk) 09:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. Go read Adolph Hitler, for example. NPOV, done right, isn't particularly comfortable for any particular POV. Jclemens (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Image

Why remove the conference guide image? It would be perfectly acceptable as a pull quote, but the scan illustrates this group's position very well. Jclemens (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

In light of the edit summary on the removal edit (removed a gratuitous and offensive image), please review WP:NOTCENSORED. Jclemens (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

For completeness' sake, here's why I removed the image: It was either misleading or poorly tagged. It was listed as a "self made" work in the image copyright, but was claiming to be a scan from the conference guide in its caption. If a scan, the copyright info was wrong. If not a scan, then there's no particular reason to use it instead of a blockquote, should that be desired. Jclemens (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Tags

• Biased? Inserting a biased tag requires an explanation on the talk page. Looks like this article is actually pretty NPOV to me--it covers the ministry's positions, and the criticisms of those positions.
• One Source--clearly not applicable. That's for articles which rely on a single source, rather than an article which sources statments to a group's own website. There are half a dozen other media references.
• Weasel Words? OK, let's take them out. What weasel words do you propose need to go in order to remove this tag?
• Cleanup-Rewrite Cleanup tags don't particularly communicate anything specific, and per WP:TC are deprecated when other more specific tags exist.
• Self-published Sources In what way do any of the SPS being used in this article violate WP:SPS? Jclemens (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Conference Guide

The Conference Guide is a dead link. That's going to be a serious issue if it has to be worked around. Trivial efforts to find a copy online have failed, but it may still be out there somewhere. Jclemens (talk) 04:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Issues to be fixed

• Paulk's stuff needs to be sourced from news, not Besen. Looking at Paulk's own article, it's clear that coverage exists.
• We need a single, concise set of refs to document the APA's opposition to LWO's agenda. Ideally, this should be one that mentions LWO by name. Right now, we have one set in the controversy section and another, recently added section in the lead.
• The Exodus International references need to be replaced with real documentation.
• External links need to be cleaned up per WP:EL. I'm thinking TWO, Nicolsi, and Cohen's EL's should be removed to their own respective articles.
• The amount of material explaining LWO's positions can be trimmed somewhat more.
• The criticism section needs to be better organized and cohesive.

If we get all that done and keep NPOV, I think we might have a GA.

Find a place for this

Not all gays feel the same way. When Love Won Out went to Palm Springs, a city known for its gay and lesbian community, it received an official welcome letter from its mayor, Ron Oden, and the city sent ambassadors to attend the event.

• The above text is interesting and has a good source. I agree it needs to be rewritten before being put back in (e.g., to what does "the same way" refer?) but I want to preserve it here as it was until we rewrite it. Jclemens (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I have an objection with "Not all gays feel the same way.". Do all "straights" ever feel the same way about something? Also, the term "gays" seems to be a homophobic dismissal of the overall community. Themeatpopsicle (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No objection; that lead-in sentence is six different flavors of awkward. I'm thinking replacing it with something more along the lines of "Reaction within the Gay community to LWO has not been universally negative..." and incorporating more text from the reference. Jclemens (talk) 00:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Hatnoting: All or none?

I prefer to have hatnotes for the other organizations mentioned in section headings, but if we're going to exclude NARTH and Exodus, it only makes sense to exclude TWO as well. I prefer the hatnotes, as they're a good way of quickly sending interested readers to those articles, and allowing us to minimize repeated content. Jclemens (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Non-Besen critics?

Looks like almost all of the criticism of LWO is sourced to Besen, or to TWO, which he started. We need to increase the diversity of criticism, even if Besen is a major force opposing LWO. Jclemens (talk) 04:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

LWO vs. FotF

I think I've changed all of the Focus on the Family refs to refer specifically to Love Won Out. Focus is a conglomerate, of which LWO is just one part, so we should be as specific as possible, while still openly acknowledging that LWO is Focus-started and -sponsored. Jclemens (talk) 04:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The funny thing is Focus on the Family used to focus on a positive message like "Get out and go fishing with your son", they used to be allowed to advertise on mainstream TV before all this "Pray away the gay" nonsense. This seems to be their angle lately, that the "nasty gay man is out to get your children and destroy your family and drink the blood of puppies", they lay it on entirely too thick IMO, Themeatpopsicle (talk) 05:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of no documentation

this edit is a reinsertion of material I deleted as failing WP:SPS: "3. it does not involve claims about third parties;". The source for this is this, which is Besen's own website. He alleges a conversation between Newsweek and Nicolosi. If we can cite it to Newsweek (possible) or Nicolosi (hardly likely), it can and should go back in. Jclemens (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

All "ex-gay" myth promoters exhibit the warning signs of bogus science ([1]) and the criteria for Pseudo-Science, unfortunately nobody wants to confront them about it cause the Christians will either boycot or sue them to suppress their critics. !!!!

Defamatory and Irrelevant material removed

First, the two references to Tennessee don't mention Love Won Out. This article is not a place to WP:COATRACK the alleged misdeeds of other ex-gay ministries, it's a description of, and only of, Love Won Out.

Second, the issue of Bussee and Cooper is irrelevant to Love Won Out. If it's about the founder of Exodus International, put it in that article, not here. Jclemens (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)