Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:01, 24 May 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the George Rekers article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 21 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the science and academia work group. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Psychology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

following discussion on BLP page

I have reduced the lead, and detail on the secondary allegation, as per conversation in the other place. The secondary allegation about 1992 has not been taken up widely, and it would be better to review this when the dust settles. All we need to know in the lead is that there is a scandal/controversy - not going into excessive details, that is what the section on this is for. In the text I have focused on inserting sources, tweaking prose, and where necessary ensuring the text reflects the source(s). Little substantive change, and have added nothing to the text itself. The statement I have tagged as requiring a source does need a source, otherwise it needs to go - but I will leave it there for somebody to provide a reliable secondary source, or delete, as appropriate. Mish (talk) 11:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

All seems appropriate. Getting to know his scholarly work a bit, this whole thing is starting to look like a Greek tragedy. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I have skimmed the citations for Kenneth Zucker's work, and he consistently cites Rekers in relation to the assesment process for kids with GID. This was initially developed by Richard Green, who understudied John Money, and Rekers effectively refined it. Interestingly, there is a paper Zucker and Robert Spitzer wrote in 2005 which includes Rekers as one of those who sought to get GID of childhood into DSM-III as a backdoor means of continuing to treat kids identified as potentially homosexual when homosexuality was removed from DSM-III:

• "Was the Gender Identity Disorder of Childhood Diagnosis Introduced into DSM-III as a Backdoor Maneuver to Replace Homosexuality? A Historical Note." Kenneth J. Zucker; Robert L. Spitzer; Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, Volume 31, Issue 1 2005 , pages 31 - 42

I hadn't appreciated quite how central a player he was in this, because he has always remained a bit of shadowy figure. Looks like if nothing else, his role in the way 'homosexual' and 'gender dysphoric' kids have been treated in the USA, Canada and the UK since the 1970s is going to come under scrutiny now; and it is also looking like a number of 'notables' could well get drawn into this reappraisal. Mish (talk) 12:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

If somebody has access to the Zucker & Spitzer paper, then it would be useful to see exactly what they say about Rekers' role; because if he was instrumental in getting this adopted in DSM-III, this would be something quite significant that needs to be in his biography somewhere. Mish (talk) 13:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I've had a look -- Rekers is mentioned, but only briefly and with no assertion that he had a direct role in the DSM-III discussions. They only note the fact that he viewed prevention of homosexuality as an explicit therapeutic goal in treatment of "gender identity disorders". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Chris0, unless I'm mistaken, you wrote on May 9, 2.36am:

Rekers has attracted attention for his views on homosexuality, which have been promoted in a number of forums and court cases. His research, which was heavily subsidized by the National Institute of Mental Health, asserts that homosexuality is a "gender disturbance" that can be corrected through 18 to 22 months of weekly therapy during childhood and adolescence.

I can't fimnd a source for the NIMH having supported this guy. Not that it would surprise me under Bush, but still - do you know where you got this?

Thanks!Panthera germanicus (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure of Pflag's status as a source, but this might help track this information down, as they suggest that Rekers himself states this somewhere:

• "The motivations of these prominent and well educated psychiatrists and psychologists is not fully understood. It is known, however, that Green and Rekers have received substantial funds through National Institute of Mental Health Grants. At least 1.5 million dollars were awarded by NIMH to study gender deviant behavior since the early 1970's. Reker's himself claims that the NIMH has funded him over a half a million dollars. The biased goals of the research is revealed in the language of the grant applications where references to atypical sex roles, atypical gender identity, modification of deviant behavior, and pre-transsexual behavior are included in the grant proposals. Other agencies funding gender corrective therapies are the Foundation Fund for Research in Psychiatry, the Research Scientist Development Award fund, the Public Health Service's clinical research grants, and the National Institute of Health's Biomedical Research Support grants."

The claim is detailed on NARTH's site here:

• "Dr. George Rekers is Distinguished Professor of Neuropsychiatry and Behavioral Science Emeritus at the University of South Carolina School of Medicine. His work has been supported by more than one million dollars from private and governmental agencies, including NSF and NIMH."

Which may be as reliable a source, but certainly not one that should be ignored in this respect? Mish (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:OR relying on primary sources relating to FRC site

The material about the Advocate reporting on the information on Rekers being taken down from the FRC site has been supplemented with information that the FAQ still susbequently does have this information - despite our not knowing when this was written into the FAQ, nor that it is different from the history page (as discussed here before the Advocate as a source was brought here). I did point out here - before it was posted up - that it was problematic for the same reason that the comparison of the history page, but this was ignored. Rather than risk an edit war by removing material like this from the BLP, I have qualified the statement in a neutral way, and supplemented this with the comparison of the before and after versions of the history pages. Personally, I do not like either insertion - and as I have also suggested previously, feel that the whole matter of the FRC site is not really relevant to this BLP, as it is about FRC not Rekers. I would prefer the whole series of statements be removed about the FRC website, because it is not really relevant, but am not prepared to remove it myself because somebody may decide to put it back, and that would be an edit war. If any of it is there, I would prefer it to be accurate and neutral - but really do feel the article is better off without any of it. Mish (talk) 01:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry, I had to remove the section, as it clearly violates three policies: WP:OR, WP:RELEVANCE and WP:UNDUE - in BLPs such violations have to be removed immediately. That the New Times printed the allegation that the Rekers relationship to FRC was removed is sourced to the Advocate - so clearly that is odd. It appears that this is not accurate, so the refutation had to be sourced to where it is in the FAQ; that means we are going beyond the claim, into original research on what becomes a primary source for this purpose. As we know, that is not the full story, because there was detail about Rekers that was removed - but we have no way of knowing exactly when that was taken down (nor when the FAQ information was inserted, nor whether it was removed and then replaced), nor even if that was actually what the Advocate referred to. In order to be accurate, we would need to provide the diffs, but that would mean using more WP:OR in order to neutralise some other WP:OR, all in order to balance something that has nothing to do with Rekers himself, and is thus irrelevant WP:RELEVANCE. In the process, we are constructing a passage that is of undue weight considering it is tangential to the article subject (it says more about the reporting and FRC than it does Rekers) WP:UNDUE. It is messy. If we have to do all this to maintain an irrelevant but erronious piece of information, then it would be better not to say anything on this matter. It is not that significant. Mish (talk) 02:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Mish, that's a toughy. I think, once the dust settles, it should be possible to establish through secondary sources the actions of all the christianist organizations (and the Florida governor's office) as well as the IRS accountings (I don't think I could get a sexual massage paid for on the basis of tax-free status, they are looking into him) and all the other matters which right now seem to be peripheral.

Personally, I don't think any of us know yet what is going to prove relevant and what is not.

Frankly, the whole reason I am not editing right now is because I fear it would lead to the edit war we so don't need.

At a minimum, I think it will ultimately be worth posting which organizations he founded or was sponsored by or worked with and their universal (at least, I haven't found any of these christianists saying: ::Dr. Rekers said it, we belive it, matter closed...and I've looked) actually stood behind him. Won't be a long list. Probably we can just put in one (carefully, secondarily sourced and cited) line: Virtually his entire previous cohort of thugs (no, I won't say "thugs" in the article) assumed guilty until proved innocent and tossed him out on his deeply-stroked, um, posterior."Panthera germanicus (talk) 09:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Good edit Mitch. It was just not worth it's dubious value and detracted from the clear statement from the organization themselves. Off2riorob (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Clear statement? Which one? I was not aware that we were required to provide our imprimatur to the hateful christianists. Once the dust settles, I very much intend to reference their actions, statements, counterstatements and on and on and on. They are notable, they are directly relevant to the bibliography (he either founded them or was active with them for decades) and their hateful decisions caused countless harm to inumerable gays and transgender. There is direct relevance and plenty of secondary sources which are not "non-cash" or "alternative" or "gay blogs".Panthera germanicus (talk) 14:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You should get some hot water for that soap. Off2riorob (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, That is the closet to a sense of humor you have shown.

Look, you began by biting the newbies. You continued by ignoring any discussion with me on controversial edits - and it was very quickly clear that you knew not everybody here felt you and you alone were the keeper of the sacred NPOV. You battled every single point in favor of the christianist (and your point of view is still strongly tilted that way). All that said - I'm not going to go away and, once the dust settles, I shall be editing this article. You're either going to have to learn to work with those here who (gasp!)don't share your favorable views of the christianist or there will be massive edit wars. I'd rather we work together. This is why I am not editing right now. This is why I have stated I won't make any changes without posting them here first. You're stuck with me, so maybe you should try to work with me to ensure the highest posible adherence to NPOV and the best quality of article.

I am well aware of my bias here and am honestly admitting it because I want to maintain NPOV. BUT NPOV does not mean "whitewash".Panthera germanicus (talk) 14:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, close to humour, thanks. I like to support living people. How would this article get written if it was only written by people that don't like him? I have simply been trying to add some balance. I still think the comment in the lede is a complete misrepresentation of the actual situation..Rekers hired a male prostitute, that is simply false reporting. Off2riorob (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Was it a female prostitute? Was it a male monk? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It was...he hired a man who was a male prostitute....not he hired a male prostitute....that falsely asserts that he wanted a male prostitute and he hired one as in...I want to hire a male prostitute...absolute false reporting. Off2riorob (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

This is one of the closest NPOV expressions that we have had in the lede...In May 2010, the Miami New Times reported that Rekers hired a travel assistant who was a male prostitute. Off2riorob (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm -- next time I hire a "travel assistant" I had better specify that I'm not interested in naked massages. By the way, did you ever work out whom you should have written to (instead of me) to complain about allegedly false accusations of disruptiveness? You never responded after I replied on my talk page! Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes ok, I can apologize here, sorry, I wrongly pointed the accusatory finger at you, I was mistaken. The indenting sometimes gets extremely hard to follow here. I didn't look back, when I get a bit heated I tend to remove pages from my watchlist as I find that is a good way to move on. Off2riorob (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I know it looks dodgy but the reality is being misrepresented because editors are saying, it is obvious but that is not the way to report. He did not hire a male prostitute as is being asserted in the lede, it really does need changing. Off2riorob (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Any poor indenting (indentationing?!) is mine.

Off2riorob, rentboy.com and its owners say he hired Geo.

rentboy.com sells the services of male prostitutes (nomen est omen, et cetra)

Geo advertises explicitly as a male prostitute

Before he lawyered up, Dr. Rekers said he got him from there

Do you really want to reflect reality here or Dr. Rekers' version thereof?Panthera germanicus (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If you are concerned about the loss of Rekers' role as one of the founder board members of FRC, I am sure we can add that in to the list of organisations he is or has been associated with. That can be sourced to the site as it now stands, and doesn't need the inclusion of problematic material about it on the FRC site. Mish (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Rentboy dot com and its owners have said nothing. Rentboy dot com do not sell the services of male prostitutes at all, rentboy dot com sell advertising to people attracted to the open and free placing of adverts put on its site by anyone that wants to, there is no official involvement of rentboy in prostitution of anybody. . The fact that Geo advertises as a prostitute is irrelevant. Rekers had a contract, that contract was not to hire a prostitute was it? no it was not. There is POV in the lede and I would like it corrected. I will add a template if no one is prepared to correct it.Off2riorob (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I should very much like to know what, precisely, is under dispute? is it the lede? if so, what word or sentence or phrase? Off2riorob, I can't help but feel that much of our discord is based on the fact that you feel very strongly about these matters (as do all of us here) but are not able to communicate your feelings on the matter to us. Since I have promised to make no changes until things settle, obviously this is an excellent time for us to try to fix this up.

If I understand you correctly - and I probably don't, then you are troubled that the article reports Dr. Rekers hired a male prostitute from a site that specializes in advertising male prostitutes? Is that correct?

What do you want as an alternative?Panthera germanicus (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

There you are, is that better - it seems to sum up what was reported by the source. Mish (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I have been posting my issues about this comment in the lede for a couple of days now and have posted above what I see as the best NPOV additions. No it is not better, is is POV, sexual massage Please consider he is a living person, it is all to easy t add content that belongs on some opinionated blog but we should report to a higher standard. Off2riorob (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm trying to figure out what you mean by "POV". I'm getting the sense that by "POV" you mean "icky". Or perhaps "salacious". Anyway, if we can get back to basics: let's just stick to what is in the sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, I may have just been hit by the clue bus. It doess't matter to you whether we can verify through high-quality secondary sources that he hired a male prostitute from a site specializing in the advertising of and offering initial contact between male prostitutes and clients - you just plain don't want those facts in the article.

Same with the Geo massaging his penis. You don't want that in the article.

Basically, you don't want anything which in any way, shape or form reports the facts that Rekers is a hypocritical christianist who has destroyed the lives of countless gays through the years while himself paying rentboys in the article.

Is that basically it?Panthera germanicus (talk) 21:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I know it looks bad, but basically even if I support your summary, we do still need to report in a conservative way and should use the highest quality of citations and report as accurately as possible in a neutral manner. 22:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

But if conservative is your POV, why conclude that it is the POV that ought to be adopted? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Please define "conservative". Do you mean "just the facts, ma'am" or do you mean "anything which shows how hateful christianists are toward gay and transgender must never appear, especially when their hypocrisy is so enourmous?Panthera germanicus (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I don't get it - are we saying this is not what was reported? That is what was reported, and that was what all the fuss was about. We are not saying whether we think he did these things, just that it was reported that this is what was said, and the consequences of this report - his chums seem to have said 'how sad', and at the same time, 'but we've not had much to do with him for a while', and dropping him off their party invites. I don't think there's anything in BLP policy that we have to censor awkward material about somebody, quite the opposite - we have to let the facts speak for themselves. The fact is this did get reported this way, and our pretending it didn't serves no purpose.Mish (talk) 22:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the edit Revision as of 04:31, May 12, 2010

I find no mention of either term in the text cited. Why was the change made? What is the original term? If the term was used in the source, why are we chaning it? Political correctness? If PC, then how do we align the change with the[REDACTED] article which, itself, uses both terms interchangeably?

I would very much appreciate an answer to this!Panthera germanicus (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It helps if you provide a link to the diff you are referring to. Mish (talk) 12:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, after a night of vandalism & reverting, somebody restored the navbox to show that Rekers' profession was "Gay rights activist", then at 04:31 somebody removed that. Not sure what the problem with that is. Nobody has ever claimed he is a gay rights activist, have they? Has he? I've looked through the whole of the 12th, and cannot find any problematic insertions that have not been reverted. So, could you spell out what the problem is, as I cannot see what it is you are referring to. Mish (talk) 13:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Primary report

<ref name="Busted">{{cite news|url=http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2010-05-13/news/how-george-alan-rekers-and-his-rent-boy-got-busted-by-new-times/ | date=2010-05-13 | first1=Brandon K. | last1=Thorp | first2=Penn | last2=Bullock | publication=MiamiNewTimes |title=How George Alan Rekers and his Rent-boy got Busted by New Times}}</ref> This is the primary report of this incident and you can't use it as a citation, to support content. Off2riorob (talk) 13:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Mish, I'm sorry. Why can't you simply read my mind and see my intentions? There's room enough in those echoing spaces. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=George_Alan_Rekers&oldid=361640736

The editor seems to have a problem politically correct terminology. Apart from my general dislike for exaggerated PC, there is the minor detail that we don't change citations to match the PC-wisdom-of-the-ages-du-jour...or do we? In any case, I couldn't find the information, whether under Native Americans or Indigineous People at the cite listed.

Off2riorob, when you set a nomination or lable you are also expected to include a thorough analysis of why on the talk page. Which, as usual, you did not do. You will note that I, upon every single administrative request have mentioned the matter here on this talk page. You never do.

Off2riorob, I strongly resent, actively resist and thoroughly demand you restore your edit of

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=George_Alan_Rekers&oldid=361677525

you replaced:

through a website called Rentboy.com to travel with him and carry his bags and provide massage that invloved genital touching for the duration of a ten-day trip to Europe

with:

to travel with him and carry his bags and provide massage once a day for the duration of a ten-day trip to Europe

That is not excessive commentary, it is relevant and pertinent. Put it back, please. Either put it back or give a genuine explanation. You don't just get to cite a guideline and expect everyone to accept it when it does not apply. I really would like to avoid an edit war here and you give every appearance of trying to whitewash this to the advantage of Dr. Rekers.

Thank you.Panthera germanicus (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Off2Rio. No it isn't. It is a secondary report. The primary report was over a week ago. The publication date for this is tomorrow. Mish (talk) 14:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You are supposed to explain the posting of a POV tag here. Just to remind you that a POV tag is not to be used because the text does not conform to your POV, and does not have to remain until the article is changed so you are happy with it. The consensus here seems to be that your edits are not NPOV. I'm unclear then why you are tagging an article where your edits seem to be the most problematically POV-oriented.Mish (talk) 14:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Mish, thank you. I took a lot of shit for stating right from the get-go that I am gay and want to see a NPOV article. Well, I stand by that, even though, to be honest, I don't personally see how the outing of a closeted gay man and his Roman adventures (perhaps on the taxpayers' dime? any answers to that yet?) with a male prostitute helps us explain that being gay has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with immutable characteristica.

Regardless, if Off2riorob is unwilling to explain his motivations and unwilling to work with the rest of us and unwilling to ever post on the discussion page first when he knows we all find the matter controversial...what is the next step in conflict resolution?

Panthera germanicus (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, Panthera, I guess that for those who aren't getting any, it must seem to be all about sex. You only have to look at the list of 'backsliders' who seem to turn to 'rent boys' when they cannot control their passions to see this. You never come across a headline 'Reverend's secret relationhsip with another man' do you? At least, when that does happen, it is a Gene Robinson, who has 'come out' in the process - rather than entrenchment in denial. Sure, it is all about identity, relationships, and the way people are. I often wonder whether it is precisely the closeting and denial that facilitates this rough trade, because when one is out, with no need to hide, one can engage in open relationship where there is a certain equivalence - and so the power politics of having to pay for sex is really not significant in many LGBT people's lives. The need for anonymity in sex, and the power to use money to get what is needed and ensure it remains hidden, this is a product of this type of lifestyle (the closet) - and of course, it is that which runs totally contrary to the Gospel. The act itself is not the problem, it is the way people are exploited and dehumanised as a product of the religious ideology that insists that what cannot be resisted has to be prohibited. What is being reported here, if we are to consider it credible, is anti-Christian as much as anti-gay - not because of the activity engaged in, but the way in which it has been engaged in. Given the history of the individual as a highly inlfuential psychologist in terms of a certain style of Christian approach to potentially gay, lesbian and transgender children, as well as a more widely used assessment of gender dysphoria as an indicator or potential homosexuality or gender identity disorder, and his representations to legal and judicial bodies - then this situation is most definitely in need of inclusion in his biography, espcially as it does appear to suggest that organisations he has been associated with appear to now be emphasising some distance between them and him. It needs to be covered for what it is, in neutral terms; neutrality is not trying to hide what has been stated as a matter of public record, but to state what is sensational in a way that is not itself sensational. If a reader sees what as written as being deeply hypocritical, anti-Christian, etc., that is not our problem - as long as we do not present it in that way ourselves; we have to present the facts, it is our duty and if we fail to do so then we are negligent, and the reader can make their own mind up. We do not massage the facts as reported because we are concerned that readers might interpret them in a way we would rather they didn't. Sermon over.Mish (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Mish. By now it must be obvious (time stamps) that I live in a civilized country with gay marriage and where separation of church and state means that the christianists don't get to tell Christians and the rest of the country what to do.

As I've mentioned before, this foreign "lifestyle" also has led to my alienation from the intricacies of political correctness. That, however, is not so terribly relevant - what's PC today is a hanging offence tomorrow and I just try to focus on not discriminating against anyone by word or deed.

There is a school of thought which maintains that very deep hatred towards gays among conservative Christians arises from people who abuse the Bible to justify their hatred. Lots of support for that, I'm just barely old enough to remember Loving vs. Virginia.

There is also a school of thought which maintains that the nastiest christianists are so hateful towards gays because they are repressing their own sexuality. As gay men, of course they find sex with other men (and affection, and love) desirable. Since they have to "settle" on women because that is the "natural order", this explains their frequent statements about marriage being a duty, not a joy...and their firm conviction, so often expressed, that gay behavior is so terribly, terribly tempting and must be resisted.

Well, of course it is tempting for them - they are gay, playing at being straight. Talk about contra naturam! I have frequently slept in one bed with straight friends while traveling or when there were no alternatives. Not once has one of them "succumbed" to the temptation nor even once found it to be a fight. But at least twice, the reason I ended up sharing a bed with a straight friend was because the alternative was his sleeping with a woman and he knew his girlfriend would be very unhappy...and he was not sure he could resist...

Beats me, but I do think one's sexual orientation is relevant.

So where do we go from here? It's obvious that Off2riorob is either unwilling or unable to find mutual ground on aspects of the article which are central. It is at least as obvious (and sure as hell will become critical the second I begin editing) that I am unable to find any agreement with him. The fact that I am willing to post first, edit last is only a minor point in my favor - the real problem remains.

Do we need a moderator? Should we revert to 3 Mai 2010 and leave it be for a bit? Shall we toss a coin, heads I win and we use your version, tails he looses and we use your version?

That was a joke, Off2riorob and I do hope your are going to work with me here, I am trying. Well, yeah, I am, but I am also seriously interested in resolving this in the interest of serious, high-quality, NPOV biographical article on a living person. A major jerk, but still, a person.Panthera germanicus (talk) 16:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you guys please leave the cultural and religious discussions to another forum? Let's just stick to discussing improvement to the article.   Will Beback  talk  17:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

"Rekers wrote to Brandon Tharp" -- what?

I'm puzzled by the third paragraph in the Rentboy Allegations section. What is supposed to be learned from the fact that Rekers wrote to the reporter? Whatever it is, I'm tempted to conclude that that paragraph isn't consistent with WP:UNDUE -- it seems like a rather peripheral element of the episode. Thoughts? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it could be summed up in one or two short sentences:

• The Miami New Times reported that Rekers had written to one of the reporters, saying that he (Rekers) had been advised on how to guide his assistant in making a statement to the newspaper, and part of the guidance was that following the statement, his assistant should "stop giving interviews". The Miami New Times subsequently reported that the advisor was a fellow NARTH board-member.

Funny how objection of the status of 'New Times' as a primary source seems to relate more to the content of the text sourced to it than the source itself. Mish (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I have implemented a change along these lines, and merged the reduction of this paragraph into the time-line/context laid out in the previous paragraph. Mish (talk) 07:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Paragraph 5: Rentboy Allegations

Might the opening paragraph there be boiled down a bit? The word "reported" is used so many times it's not only redundant, it's beginning to look like "reportedly". For example, do we have to say "Lucien"/whoever was "reported" to be available at rentboy.com? No one is disputing that. He was available at the site. Similarly, must we say he was "reported" to be at the airport? He was at the airport. Perhaps it could read more like:

COULD BE?: The Miami New Times reported on May 4, 2010 that three weeks previously, Rekers had been photographed at Miami International Airport with "Lucien" (later identified as Jo-Vanni Roman), a twenty-year-old "rent boy" available for hire through the "Rentboy.com" website.

CURRENTLY: The Miami New Times reported on May 4, 2010 that three weeks previously, Rekers had been photographed at Miami International Airport with a man reported to be a twenty-year-old "rent boy" using the name "Lucien" (later identified as Jo-Vanni Roman). Roman was reported to be available for hire through the "Rentboy.com" website.

Codenamemary (talk) 00:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, of course, you're quite right Codenamemary. Unfortunately, some editors sees that matter differently.

Good luck with getting them to agree to a simple posting of the facts. Their version of "NPOV" seems to be: If it shows Dr. Rekers or the christianists for the hypocritical, hateful people the are, then it must either be removed or so debased as to be of no value.

Be bold, as long as you adhere to the pertinent guidelines on biographies of living persons I think it would be wonderful to see less "teh evil gayz" made him reportedly do it and more "he did this, and here is where, when, what, how and with whom".Panthera germanicus (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. I've been saying this for several days, and I think we can now conclude there is a consensus for a change along these lines. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree - as long as we make clear that this is a report, we don't need to keep emphasising it is a report, claim, allegation, etc. Several of us have been saying this, but one (or two?) people seem to want this story watered down for some reason. Mish (talk) 06:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Mish, are you accusing me of wanting a fact-based, NPOV, biography of a living person? Why, yes, I do believe you are! Fountain pens at 100 feet, sirah!

Seriously, part of the problem is that the editor(s) who don't agree with the approach most of us seem comfortable with aren't really willing to talk it out with the rest of us. Ironic, in a way - the conflicts in approach to this article and the conflicts driving the Dr. Rekers scandal are both anchored in the hate teh gayz mentality of the christianists.Panthera germanicus (talk) 09:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

We have to assume good faith here, so we do not assume that just because somebody wants an article that waters-down what is said in sources, that this is because they have a bias that favours an ideology and seeks to present the subject in a certain light. We might think it, but we never state that, because that is uncivil. By the same token, they would not suggest our wishing to stick to what the sources say might be because we have a bias that favours an ideology and seeks to present the subject in a certain light. In our case, as long as we do try and stick to the sources, then it is a more difficult thing to substantiate - whereas consistently trying to suppress sources that give reports about the subject in a bad light is not really ever going to run, because it runs contrary to the ethos of the encyclopdia. This is why I feel we have to stick to what the sources say, and that this is probably the most important principle in allowing the encyclopedia to function, as it rests on accuracy and verifiability. There is no getting around that, no matter how much people squirm. I am a Christian myself, although I am no longer associated with an organisation that institutionalises homophobia and/or ignores homophobia amongst its members (CofE/Anglican) - but I don't think you can go around accusing people of being christianists, just because they defend the rights of somebody who purports to be Christian but is so only in name.Mish (talk) 10:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Valid point, Mish. After every undo and edit and re-edit and watering down and whitewash since 3 May 2010, I no longer assume good faith. Sorry, I just don't.

I want exactly what you want. I just don't see one or two editors here striving toward that goal. Personally, I am a Christian, just, as a gay man I've been told so often by the christianists that I can't be gay and a Christian, I've had it with them.

So, where do we go from here? Off2riorob has put up a conflict template yet steadfastly refuses to engage in any discussion, apart from threatening to "report" me and whitewashing the article at every opportunity. I think it's time to call for help, get the matter settled and move on.92.194.90.53 (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

That was quick! THANKS! That bit reads much better now. Looking back over the discussion page, I admire how you've all stuck around to keep on top of changes, as I know the back-and-forth can be REALLY frustrating. To my thinking, a resource's readability is EXTREMELY important. What use is mounds of accuracy if your average person can't grasp what's being said, and fairly quickly? Thanks for trying to give this story some shape people can absorb, and draw their own conclusions about, from there. Codenamemary (talk) 18:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality template

OK, the neutrality template has been added to the article? I just read over the current version's Rentboy sections, and it appears accurate and well-sourced. What is the alleged problem?--Milowent (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Milowent, I hope you can find out. Repeated requests from me have been treated to absolute silence on this page - and continued white-washing of the article. Panthera germanicus (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem either. What you added/edited looks OK to me, but the statement about the defamation lawyer needs to be in the body text if it is going to be in the lead (as that is meant to summarise the article), and it ought to have a source.Mish (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Joy, joy, happy, happy - The Liberty Counsel is now making noises about supporting Dr. Rekers in a defamation case. I think we should hold up a bit on any further entries in this regard until something on all of this has settled. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/13/same-sex-researchers-defamation-claim-backed/

Hmm, does the Washing Times count as a "non-cash" alternative newspaper or (gasp!) Gay Blog or is it a real source? Questions, questions...

Personally, I think the court hearing on the matter would be fascinating, simply fascinating.

Seriously, though, if we just could hold off for a bit? So far, every time we've tried to be up-to-the-minute, we've had serious editing to do.Panthera germanicus (talk) 14:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I guarantee you he will not a file a defamation lawsuit. The fact that this Liberty Counsel said they would back him up is a minor detail.--Milowent (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I have been following the discussion on this page. I removed the template due to the lack of any stated NPOV problem. For the template to be re-inserted, please state at least one specific problem using a direct quote with a description of what is objectionable.

Panthera, could I respectfully request that you try to limit commentary about your feelings. This is not a discussion board and I mean this in the nicest way, but I am a little hurt to hear of anyone celebrating another person's tragedy even if the person may have deserved the justice. That goes for others; sorry for targeting you. Thanks. Blue Rasberry 14:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, Bluerasberry. I appreciate your taking an interest in this article.

Personally, I have suffered considerably at the hands of these christianists and I do take enormous satisfaction in seeing them shown up for what they really are. No point in pretending otherwise. I'll try real hard to ignore the reality of these hateful people and the horrible things they have done to me and others in the gay and transgender community.

Which is my whole interest in this article: I figure a NPOV, accurate biography of Dr. Rekers will do more damage to their movement than anything else. This, of course, is why there are also such strong efforts to whitewash the article and block any verifiable entries which make him look like what he is coming from some editors.

I'll behave, but I am very much going to call foul loudly and strongly when the editors who are whitewashing don't.Panthera germanicus (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I take no delight in Rekers situation. I hope he has his gay Damascus moment (but am skeptical). My concern is more to do with the defamation and abuse he has been peddling and imposing on vulnerable children, which appears to have influenced notable clinical psychologists beyond certain Christian circles. Mish (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should call him a "gay" psychologist and am glad it was reverted. It is more damning to tell the story straight out of reputable resources and let the informed reader decide for him or herself.Panthera germanicus (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

ex-"ex-gay"-psychologist?

No, no really - by sticking strictly to the facts, we are fulfilling the mission of Misplaced Pages. I don't think anyone doubts my personal feelings here, just - let's stick to the verifiable stuff. Panthera germanicus (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I am "limiting commentary about my feelings", but will just add that I do not take joy in this story, either. My reaction is a combination of feeling sad, and feeling sick. It's all just so sordid. (And if one is to believe Rekers' statement, just how did he supposedly "find out" "halfway through the trip" his employee was a prostitute?? Do such details ordinarily pop up in the usual workday of luggage lifting??)Codenamemary (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess some people can tell the difference between a pro and an amateur when it comes to "the long stroke"? But, that goes beyond the sources.Mish (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Rekers hired him after finding him at rentboy.com. He had Geo give him two "massages" prior to embarking on their trip.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.Panthera germanicus (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Codenamemary, I don't know about the usual work-a-day world of luggage lifters, my understanding of the matter was that Geo was hired as a bag lifter.

That's an entirely different vocation and one which certainly explains why Dr. Rekers went to rentboy.com for him. How very strange that Dr. Rekers has failed to come up with any of these peoples' names who allegedly introduced him to the young man. And no, before anyone goes screaming off to the administrators, that's a valid point...either he hired him through Geo's ad in rentboy.com or his friends introduced them. One or the other, but not both. Or am I missing something?Panthera germanicus (talk) 21:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

We might have to wait for the trial depositions to clarify who close to Rekers gave referrals for RentBoy. It would be a great public service if Rekers' call for a trial goes forward. Both sides should agree on that, anyway.Codenamemary (talk) 00:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think a public hearing under oath on the whole matter would be fascinating. Especially the testimony under oath part. Thank goodness Geo has some serious people from human and civil rights groups backing him up. I'll refrain from further comment.Panthera germanicus (talk) 01:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Additional Clarity in Lede?

In the third paragraph of the lede, the phrasing can be interpreted as if Roman had specifically advertised himself as a "travel assistant". Is that established? First off, in the recorded conversation when the Miami New Times verified the story (http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2010/05/rekers_on_the_record.php), Dr. Rekers specifically refers to Mr. Roman as a "travel companion" six times (it's also the phrase he says he Googled), and the journalist uses the phrase once in the conversation and is not corrected by Rekers. I think "travel companion" is the more accurate phrase to use, as the description "travel assistant" doesn't appear until days later in an announcement on Reker's site, where it's used half as many times. BE THAT AS IT MAY, the job description might be moved elsewhere in the sentence, as the wording now implies Roman specifically advertised himself as a "travel assistant" at rentboy.com...which I don't think is the case.

COULD BE?: In May 2010, the Miami New Times reported that Rekers had hired a male "travel companion" who advertised as a prostitute on the website Rentboy.com to travel with him, carry his bags, and provide daily one-hour nude sexual massages during a ten-day European vacation. In wake of the story, Rekers denied any inappropriate conduct, and stated that he had hired a defamation attorney to fight untrue claims made against him. He also resigned from the Board of NARTH.

CURRENTLY: In May 2010, the Miami New Times reported that Rekers had hired a man who offered male prostitution through a website called Rentboy.com as a "travel assistant" to travel with him, carry his bags, and provide daily one-hour nude sexual massages during a ten-day trip to Europe. In wake of the story, Rekers denied any inappropriate conduct, and stated that he had hired a defamation attorney to fight untrue claims made against him. He also resigned from the Board of NARTH. Codenamemary (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no issues with changing this to read companion, if that is what the earlier sources state. I do not have a problem with saying he 'hired a male travel companion', as long as we are clear that the companion says that the companionship also included sexual massage, while Rekers that the companionship was for luggage handling. In other words, we need to keep the nature of that companionship open. I would not be happy saying he 'hired a male travel assistant' in the same way, because that implies Rekers version is true, and the companion's is not - and we simply do not know which version is correct. If we give over-credence to Rekers' account, we run into BLP issues with regard his companion; if we give over-credence to the companion's account, we run into BLP issues with regard to Rekers. It may help to run the idea of companionship through to the different takes on what that companionship entailed - i.e., state that Rekers states that the companionship entailed luggage handling, and the companion states that it entailed sexual massage.Mish (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am with you. I actually had to go back and edit my earlier comment because it got so confusing going back and forth between the two terms in discussion and examples. The Original Paragraph uses the term "Travel Assistant", which I object to. The phrase Rekers used in the verification phone call from Miami New Times (and claims he searched under) was "Travel Companion". "Travel Companion" seems to be the more accurate phrase to use....in place of where "Travel Assistant" was originally used in that particular, opening section. (I don't mean the "RentBoy Allegations", paragraph 5, I addressed yesterday). I'm sorry if I was unclear.Codenamemary (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think "travel companion" is a good compromise. Ultimately, if the christianists do force this to a court trial, we will have the contract and testimony under oath. At that point, it might well be necessary to adjust. Personal companion? Masseuse cum porter? I can't document it, but I've worked all my professional life with professors in his age group. I genuinely suspect Dr. Rekers was not prepared for Geo to be intelligent, articulate and literate. This takes on more and more aspects of a proper Greek tragedy. In all senses of the word.

Panthera germanicus (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Vacation, or Business Trip?

Has it been mentioned in any news sources if there was actual business or official research Dr. Rekers was conducting in Europe? Was it purely a pleasure trip? Codenamemary (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Define "pleasure", codenamemary. Actually, I have yet to see anything about that. It is a very valid question and one worth pursuing. Here's another one. Was this a tax-exempt trip?Panthera germanicus (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Another Q to follow-up on: Was it Around-the-World?Codenamemary (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It was to Europe, Italy and Britain I think (forget where I read that). No reason to think it would have been round the world, as it would take less than 12 hours to get from Europe to Florida flying West, but up to 36 hours flying East (and would necessitate at least two stops on the way). Having done a trip half-way round the world, I doubt very much anybody would do 2/3 round the world unless they really really had to. Mish (talk) 01:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It is interesting if he did visit Britain, as I am not aware of any conferences here that he would have attended - I usually get to hear about these things through queer/sexology lists. There was a trans demo here when Zucker attended a meeting at the Royal College of Psychiatrists not long ago, and I can't imagine that somebody with Rekers' track record wouldn't have attracted some form of protest, or at least a mention in the gay press or amongst 'gender' groups. It did make me wonder what he might have been doing here. Considering how the Pink Paper here has reported on this, I'm surprised they haven't tried to dig up what he was doing here. There are groups here like Outrage! who are very good at outing people who are anti-gay yet live a double life - I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that the reason the photographers were at the airport when he flew home was not because of anything as sinister as him being 'set-up', but far more mundane - somebody probably spotted him and his companion, picked up the telephone and tipped off somebody in the States. Outrage! was founded by Peter Tatchell out of the ashes of the UK GLF; he virtually invented outing anti-gay clergy who are secretly homosexual. Of course, this is all speculation.Mish (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry; "around the world" is hooker lingoCodenamemary (talk) 02:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh right - outside my experience I'm afraid. Nice to know that I can still be naive about some things at my age. (what does it mean?) Mish (talk) 02:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear....I see we are in need of another[REDACTED] entry. Jeepers, the people THAT one will draw out! Codenamemary (talk) 02:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I am sure that will cause problems on the DAB page...

I added some stuff from Christianity today, it seems they are reporting on Rekers' new euphemism "unwise decision". It is interesting, because it appears that he knew Gio for a month before the trip. This got me interested, and in the interview with Gio, he says this was a vacation ; if you put this together with the eight-hours a day companionship he was contracted for, then it would make sense that they went on holiday together - because if this had been a professional trip, Rekers would have been busy at meetings/seminars/conferences for most of the time. It is interesting how the commentaries seem to have elided that this was a holiday. I was wrong about the locations, it was Britian (London), but the other city was Madrid (Spain). Mish (talk) 03:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Several stand up comics have noted the "around the world" and "when in Rome" aspects of this but I doubt we could put them in without a major edit war. We have to pretend to be shocked, shocked I tell you.

It is worth at least a section all by itself to note the hypocrisy of the christianists regarding this matter. First, the usual stalinesque purge of Dr. Rekers and denials they know him...or at least, have seen him in the last ten years. Then, the usual bull about how he's fallen, etc. Next, the threats of legal action against them thar libruls and, finally, the three "good" "Christian" advisors to bring him back onto the path of betterosexuality. Notable, reported in the non-gay-blog, non-alternative papers and comparable to several others of these christianists when they get caught.

I've also, finally, understood the distinction some editors are making here between "gay" and "homosexual". The political correctness silliness didn't quite cover it, but there have been several learned comments in the "proper" press lately about how christianists deny all scientific findings when they don't like them: To them, homosexuality is purely chosen behaviour. Nobody is really "gay", it is a personal choice because we are all "truly" heterosexual.

In other words, the temptation of gay sex is so enormous, the fallen nature can not resist it.

Total bull, but I suppose people who until recently were fighting human status for Negroes and still believe the world is 6,000 years old have no problem with cafeteria science. I'd like to see a suitable analysis on that from somebody who is notable enough the christianists can't strip it out.Panthera germanicus (talk) 10:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for the poor indentation. One thing which really bothers me in these discussions and which I think is important to pay attention to the the "Christian" aspect. I am gay, I am a Christian. Dr. Rekers is also a Christian. Thus, not all Christians are the same. I make the distinction on this discussion page with "Christian versus christianist" but really would appreciate it if, in the article, nobody writes it so as to appear that all "Christians" are the same in our beliefs on human status of gays. We aren't.Panthera germanicus (talk) 10:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

This quote here, from Christianity Today http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/mayweb-only/29-32.0.html I find particularly interesting:

• "I confessed to the Lord and to my family that I was unwise and wrong to hire this travel assistant after knowing him only one month before the trip and not knowing whether he was more than a person raised in a Christian home,"

How are we supposed to read this? With his interest in young people, why did Focus on the Family drop him when they merged with the Family Research Council? The relationship with Gio borders on pederasty. So, here he is conducting himself in a way that in his own mind is not gay, as there is no kissing or intercourse, and sticks to the rules which seems to include sexual massage (according to Gio). What he repents of is not what happened, but choosing the wrong sort of person to do this with. The right sort of young man, from what he says, would have been "raised in a Christian home" (and no "more" than that). I get a very uncomfortable feeling about that comment - it evokes images of the right sort of young person to go on holiday with and recieve sexual massage from being brought up in a Christian home, and groomed to the limits of what is sexually/spiritually/literally acceptable, and to keep silent about it? I can't help wondering whether there is a bigger story here than just a hypocritite who uses a rent-boy. Has anybody scratched a bit deeper below the surface of this story? Maybe we will never know for certain if this was the tip of an iceberg, or what the nature of that iceberg would be, but given his "sin" was in choosing the wrong type of companion, and his chums still seem to have dropped him like a ton of bricks, and how advocates for him seem to have vanished from here in the past few days, it does make me wonder. Hopefully, more will become available when/if he does sue the entire gay community and media around the world for defamation (he won't) - and until then it would be unwise to speculate.Mish (talk) 11:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

This passage: "Rekers credits himself for developing a method of assessing gender behaviour in children's play in 1972; this system is still utilised today, and Rekers is cited in this context by leading clinicians like Kenneth Zucker in the USA and Canada, and Domenico diCeglie in the UK, who use his system of assessment."

Who says they are "leading"? By whose criteria have the been deemed "leading"? I mean, apart from the heteronormative, christianists, of course. I'd like a thorough explanation of just why Zucker and di Ceglie are in the article to begin with and why "leading".

I have not edited yet because of my firm belief that it is better to leave things be until the dust settles. But I am not going to just sit here and let people POV the article to advance the hateful agenda of the gay and transgender bashing christianists. I'll wait patiently a bit for an explanation here then up goes the violation of neutrality template to warn young children and their parents of an something which is highly controversial, not based on anything but christianist bull and frequently causes suicide in young people.Panthera germanicus (talk) 12:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Mish, Haggard threw up similar smoke screens regarding that hunk of a hunk of manly man he was, um, er, "seeing". Yes, "seeing". His excuse was his drug addiction and the guy was his candy-man, er, um, source and well, he just, um, not in a gay, way, sort of just slipped and fell into the guy. So to speak.

Christianists have a major problem. They pick and choose science to fit their needs. They pick and choose biblical verses to fit their political (read $$$) goals. When confronted with the immutable characteristic of being gay, they either seek refuge in the bull about "no gene found, so not real" which is about on the same level of comprehension as their 18th century views of natural selection or they do the whole "gay sex is so tempting, our fallen nature makes it inevitable we fall" thing-y.

Totally sick and completely unbelievable to anyone except another christianist. This also explains their exclusive focus on anal intercourse as being the be-all and end-all of "gayness". They don't want to acknowledge the truth, that our love is just as valid as that of heterosexuals, so they reduce us to a pure sex act.

What this says of their opinion of women, I won't go into, but if you look at their hatefilled comments on us wanting to destroy marriage (by seeking marriage rights and responsibilities) our hatred of the family (by adopting children), etc. this is always the basis.

If their hatred didn't affect the rest of us, my sole concern here would be the damage to Geo. Since it does, I strongly feel we must document every verifiable aspect of this. There's some very good analysis of this by Timothy Noah over on boxturtlebulletin. Of course, since that's, gasp!, only a "gay blog" we wouldn't want to integrate it, now would we.Panthera germanicus (talk) 12:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Zucker is pretty straightforward. Whether you like him or not, he is probably the most published current clinical psychologist working in childhood trans and intersex gender identity, is keynote speaker at conferences in the USA and Europe, and has a direct effect on children's lives through his role in the APA DSM committees. Because no only person in this field has a comparable opposition movement campaigning against him, then it is hard to see how else you would describe him. As for DiCelglie, well, I know of nobody else who occupies a more senior role in this area, in this country. If you are concerned that 'leading' suggests a certain positive attitude, by all means change to 'most notable', that is totally uncontroversial. I'm not clear that the people you describe have any particular brief for Zucker or DiCeglie; if they do, it is the first I have heard it. I would be surprised, given the APA's opposition to conversion therapy, and the NHS being Ceglie's employer as a secular state health service - he totally opposed to conversion therapy, and is Jewish (secular, I believe). Again, if you know of more notable clinical psychologists working on childhood gender identity, and who do not cite Rekers, then do say. Mish (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

On the second point, I think you missed my point; although it was stated in an oblique way for obvious reasons. Mish (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. The 'christianist' comment is a bit tedious after a while, BTW, especially when I've not noticed the sorts of edits you talk about for several days now.Mish (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

On second thoughts, this question of NPOV demonstrates a profound ignorance of the subject - I have replaced 'leading' with text from Kenneth Zucker's BLP. No point re-inventing the wheel here. Go and argue this out on his article if you think that is not neutral. There his expertise and authority is well documented, as well as his work with the APA. You refer to BoxTurtle, well, this what this says about Ken:

• Kenneth J. Zucker, Ph.D., C.Psych., the Chair of the DSM-V Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders work group, is a widely respected and pre-eminent scholar in the world of academic sexology research.

• Dr. Zucker has published 97 peer-reviewed journal articles, 48 book chapters, and a landmark textbook. His published work addresses psychosexual differentiation and its disorders, based on a wide range of empirical research studies on children and adolescents with gender identity disorder, with a focus on diagnosis and assessment, and their associated behavioral and psychological distress. As the current Editor of Archives of Sexual Behavior, the premier human sexuality research journal, he also has a wide familiarity with the disparate areas of sexual dysfunctions and paraphilias.

• Dr. Zucker’s therapeutic approach has no relationship to so-called reparative or sexual conversion therapies that attempt to change homosexual orientations to heterosexual ones. The goal of his therapy is the opposite of conversion therapy in that he considers well-adjusted transsexual, gay, lesbian or bisexual youth to be therapy successes, not failures.

So, 'PG' using your own preferred source, your bad-faith POV assertion is clearly unfounded. That doesn't mean that trans people (and some intersex people) are not unhappy with him being as important as he is - but their dissatisfaction makes him no less significant an authority. Mish (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

MishMich, I have no problem at all with the changes you have made to that section. I only think they weren't necessary as a response to the other editor's concerns: his complaint was rooted largely in an accusation against the "POV" of the editor who wrote that portion (you -- though he clearly didn't know it was you). It's worth noting that that editor has been temporarily blocked for disruptive editing (). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Mish, I appreciate your changes.Panthera germanicus (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

This is what I don't get about his resignation: He said he needed time to devote to his defense, while the organization said they hadn't had contact with him for 10 years. So, how much of his time was actually devoted to sitting on the Board of Directors? Are there minutes? I mean, if you have time constraints (which is Reker's "official story"), you don't have to quit something you only give a few hours a year (or even a month) to.Codenamemary (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you confusing NARTH with the Family Research Council? I think the latter made the 10 year comment.--Milowent (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, FRC - no contact for 10 years, NARTH - resigned to take time out for defense.Mish (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am probably confusing the 2. (I'm VERY well versed on Jane Eyre, though.)Codenamemary (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Section break: Rekers' doctrinal beliefs

Mish, I'm sorry, but I firmly believe that this additional material in Section 4.4 serves no useful purpose in this article. Should a reader desire more information about fundamentalist Christianity or be interested in researching conservative Christian motivations, or Dr. Rekers' Interact International Inc., then there are plenty of places to find them. This is purely proselyting Christianity and has no place here.Panthera germanicus (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I restored the doctrinal positions of Rekers' own ministry. Stating the doctrinal positions he has set out is not proselytising, it is illustrating the beliefs that he subscribes to. I don't subscribe to most of this myself (belief in Satan seems antithetical to belief in God), but that doesn't mean his beliefs as a minister should be excluded in his BLP - including his believing in Satan as a personality. Given his psychological weltanschauung is inesxtricably bound up with his faith, it seems quite significant.Mish (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it isn't being presented as proselytizing but rather as characterizing his beliefs. That said, we might take the view that it is more about the organization than about Rekers himself (though he is obviously a central character in the former). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Mish, I certainly agree that readers may well be interested in his "Christian" beliefs, I just don't feel that this is the right page for them. Misplaced Pages has quite a fair amount on the religion to which a reader could refer. I just don't see a need for it in this article. I've looked around, most articles on notable Christians (most, thank goodness, notable not for these reasons) and don't find such descriptions of their purported religion. Could we perhaps compromise by linking to one of the Misplaced Pages articles on fundamentalist-conservative-evangelical Christianity? That would provide the information adequately. No?Panthera germanicus (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I need to look into this further, but I would be surprised if people who have established a ministry, mission or church do not give some detail about the doctrinal statements. One would need to establish which congregations hold a similar set of doctrinal beliefs. I am assuming his ministry is of Wesleyan/Methodist roots, although his doctrinal statements suggest this is charismatic (which I believe is still unusual in Methodism). Given his work and the way his irrational weltanschauung clearly influences his psychological positions, I do feel that this is highly relevant to understanding the nature of the POV reflected in his work - not proselytising. Mish (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well, he has been deeply involved in many organizations involved in making life hell-on-earth for gays, transgender and kids who aren't sufficiently 1950's boy or girl in their behavior. Should we then give such detailed information on the underlying concept of each of these? Electroshock, stripping children away from their parents, et al? What about the conflicts between other Christian beliefs (I'm a Christian, was raised a Methodist and the only thing this man has in common with John Wesley is that they were both in London...). Surely, if we are going to list the premises allegedly behind this Interact International, then we should do so for NARTH and all the others...with, in each case, equal space given to the considerable controversy over each of these "Christian" organizations and their application of Christian values.

Seriously, I really object to this. Let folks who want to pursue the "values" behind his organizations look them up, they are not truly pivotal zu seiner Weltanschauung.

Speaking of which, isn't it going too far for us to speculate on his personal belief and values system? From my perspective, it consists of sex with rentboys and mis-using biblical texts to make lots of money, electroshock and torture gays and turn life to a living hell for the transgender, and no, I am not indulging hyperbole nor bloviating.Panthera germanicus (talk) 20:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, what you said is not quite correct. We do tend to comment on doctrines, where they relate to people's life, work, ministries, theology, etc.

• John Wesley#Doctrines_and_theology
• Jim Wallis#Theology
• John Shelby_Spong#Writings
• Hans Kung#Work
• Karl Barth#Theology
• Dr Martyn Lloyd Jones#Legacy
• J. I. Packer#Views on Controversial Issues

Although, that is not entirely relevant. It is not speculation, we list this organisation, it is his ministry, this is the doctrine of his ministry. Of course this is significant: you don't get liberal protestant psychologists or organisations involved with the ex-gay movement, do you? It says a lot to me, like he subscribes to doctine that includes belief in personal entities antithetical to Christianity, baptism in the Holy Spirit, justification by faith, that humans are fallen creatures, eternal damnation for the lost, etc. This is his BLP, this is his ministry, it needs to be included - if that is associated with his exploitation of young gay people, and torture of transgender children, I don't see why I would want to avoid that association. Don't see the problem. Mish (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Mish, I see where you are coming from, just, either this listing doesn't go far enough or it goes too far. It's all very well and good to list basic tenants of fundamentalist American Christianity, but we have no connection between this listing and the enormous, hateful agenda to which they are put. That is why I denounced this as proselyting originally.

From my perspective, it would be enough to resolve the matter in the same way it is under John Shelby Spong - here the text: Spong's writings rely on Biblical and non-Biblical sources, and are influenced by modern critical analysis of these sources (see especially Spong, 1991).

include a link to their website and let readers investigate their "principles" for themselves.

In many ways, the two are comparable in that they both begin with the Bible and end with one advocating humane treatment of those with whom one disagrees and the other using electroshock and working as an expert witness to have children stripped forcefully from their parents.Panthera germanicus (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

If you can provide a link to this doctrinal statement somewhere else within the encyclopedia, I am fine with that. I know what fundamentalist American Christianity is - although I defy you tie this down in a way that everybody would agree with. I understand that Christians with deep psychological problems spend much of their time talking about hell and damnation and the devil (and qweerz), hiding their inner turmoil and self-loathing behind plastic smiles while they project their personal problems onto 'the others', while well-adjusted Christians tend to be more concerned with loving God with all one's heart, mind and spirit, loving their neighbour as themselves, getting theior own houses in order and taking specks out of their own eyes. This relatively new American cult you refer to, which is really a corruption of Christianity by restorationism and pentecostalism, has begun to cause problems in this country (as it does every country America exports it to) - particularly within Anglicanism. My understanding is that there are nuances which distinguish fundamentalists, charismatics and evangelicals - so it would not be sufficient to state that his ministry is one thing or another without more detail backed up by sources. Clearly, from the doctrine, it falls somewhere within this grouping somewhere. However, without something more detailed, I'd be reluctant to replace the doctrinal coverage with something that might actually be inaccurate (especially in a BLP); I wouldn't want to say this was fundamentalist, only to find he isn't, but rather an evangelical methodist, or charismatic house-church, or whatever. If you have access to sources that detail this more specifically, by all means include that. In the meantime, I think that the best we can show is what the doctrine is, then people will understand where his ministry (and thereby him) might lie. We are not drawing a synthesis, because all we are doing is stating the doctrine of the ministry as defined by his ministry's website. I have to admit I was surprised by this challenge, because I couldn't envision any challenge to it, certainly not in the form it took - and went to some trouble to grasp what the doctrine was, reducing it down to the barest essentials. Statements of doctrine are not proselytising - they are what evangelicals (etc.) tend to hit people with after they have been converted; believe in satan tends to come later, after you have convinced them that there is a God and they will still be alive when they are dead. Mish (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Mish, I am also familiar with the concept, and the evil resulting there from.

Personally, I would far rather discuss things first, then change them in consensus. I'm out of time this evening so a search of the encyclopedia will have to wait a bit, but, yes, I think that would be a good solution. I agree that it is next to impossible to find a category for the group of conservative, evangelical, fundamentalist, etc. Christians which any of them will accept. Anyway, I shall look and then let you know what I have found.

Two other edits I shall be implementing this week will be to add the statement by the NIH director on Rekers' "American College of Pediatricians" to that reference. http://www.nih.gov/about/director/04152010_statement_ACP.htm

I feel a director of the NIH carries sufficient notability to justify it.

The second edit will be a position statement from a notable transgender group on the work of Dr. Zuker which will provide balance.Panthera germanicus (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Integrating Reports of Beating Children

OK, not bloviating or avoiding editing - this has been an ongoing question on this topic from the beginning: Do we count MiamiNewTimes as a valid source or not? The question arises because of this article: http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2010/05/before_he_hired_an_escort_reke.php I would very much like to incorporate as much as possible on both incidents. A man whose work causes suicide attempts and involves beating kids to make them conform to conservative Christian notions of behavior (heteronormative male and female behavior) should not be listed as a source for notable psychologist working in the field without explaining the background of his work: Beat young children until they conform.Panthera germanicus (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

This seems to me to be very important material regarding what Rekers' research and methods consisted of. The Miami New Times has at least medium credibility, though I'd like to dig up more sources about his methods to confirm if possible. The book Gender Shock is referenced as a source, and it seems to be a notable book, having gotten some major coverage, e.g., (JAMA review 1997); (LA Times book review, 1996). Note that the 2001 article in Brain Child magazine referenced by the New Times is available here, and refers in detail to Burke. That article also mentions that Rekers is the "the same man who declared Susan Smith sane" (he also wrote a book about Susan Smith as well), which is not mentioned in the current article and should probably be mentioned. (Also, one might peruse the insightful review of one of rekers' other books here, for humour only).--Milowent (talk) 13:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Good review, would get them blocked and banned here for a first infringement. Let's see what else turns up then integrate it - don't wait for me if you have it. I'm very clumsy at the editing process and slow.

As a childhood victim of one of these "Christian" psychologists, I'm anything but sympathetic to this man's debunked theories. Hmm, DSM V isn't officil yet, but we ought to link to that on the matter, too.Panthera germanicus (talk) 13:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no issues about the source myself, however, I do have the book referred to in the report if that is of any use.

In the book refered to in the report, Burke says that from the 1970s, NIMH awarded at least $1.5 million for work with 'feminine boys' to UCLA, State University of New York, the Roosevelt Institute (NY), and two organisations of which Reker's was listed as the principle investigator: Fuller Theological Seminary and the Logos Reasearch Institute. Rekers has claimed he received over $0.5 million from NIMH for research and treatment of childhood gender problems; one example is $96,000 in 1976 to the Fuller Theological Seminary for his work in "behavioural treatment of childhood gender problems". The largest experiments funded by the US government were at UCLA in the 1970s under Richard Green (sexologist), George Rekers and O. Ivar Lovaas, known as the "Feminine Boy Project". (summarised from Phyllis Burke, Gender Shock, Anchor Books; New York, London & Toronto, 1996; p.32-33.) I have this book, so anything you need from this, I can look it up. I have read Green's book on the UCLA project, and should have some excerpts filed away somewhere.

Another interesting book is "Sissies & Tomboys", edited by Matthew Rottneck. In the chapter "Gender-Dysphoric Children and Adolescents", Richard Pleak discusses the behaviour modification treatment of gender-dysphoric children in the 1970s; he says that the reports were primarily by George Rekers, such as the first report by Rekers and Lovaas in 1974. This paper describes "treatment focusing on reinforcing masculine behaviours and extinguishing feminine behaviours" (p.39) The approach of punishing cross-gender behaviour at a time when some people advocated androgynous rearing to combat sexism was criticised, and Rekers modified the description as "reinforcement of masculine behaviours" (p.40). In the late 1970s, people began to suspect that Rekers was also using religious persuasion in treating such children, and that he had an "extremist religious bias against homosexuality", after which time the critical debate diminished. He regarded homosexuality as a perversion, transvestism, transsexuality and some forms of homosexuality as sexual deviations. He claimed that his methods were effective in preventing homosexuality, despite the absence of any evidence to support his claims. These claims were made after the APA had removed homosexuality from the DSM. He has persisted in his approach that argues for the treatment of children in a context where homosexuality and transsexualism are seen as patholgies. Despite this, he was still managing to publish under a major medical publishing house in the 1990s.Mish (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Mish, to the extent the excel worksheet I use instead of a heart is capable of it, my sincere gratitude. That was precisely the period of time when I'd attend one graduate seminar on abnormal psych. and the prof. would speak about children who were raised in non-traditional homes having lower incidents of substance abuse as adults then attend another lecture at which the prof. would assure us that gender roles were one of the few social phenotypes with direct chromosomal expression...or some such nonsense, even then I just put my brain in neutral and looked at the blinking lights.

Yes, if we could integrate your book that would be cool.Panthera germanicus (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Undo from 17:19, May 17 I was just undoing this when Nomoskedasticity beat me to it. My objection was lack of adequate sourcing, not the "sordid details". On the contrary, were this to be adequately source, I should welcome the material as fully appropriate to the text. Panthera germanicus (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

On page 37, Burke, after describing how Green procured Kraig (4 years old) as the first child Rekers and Lovaas would experiment on, summarises their treatment rationale:

• Kraig would be scorned by his/her peers, and it is easier to change the child than society.
• Kraig was at risk in adulthood of transvestism, transsexualism, or some form of gender-nonconforming homosexuality.
• As an adult, Kraig risked depression, arrest, trial and imprisonment as a transsexual, and self-mutilation (such as autcastration/autpenectomy).

This latter prognosis was made despite Kraig having expressed no distress about his physical phenotype, only social gender role (expressed as not wanting to die in Vietnam) and preference for playing with girls.

p.38-44:

Through the behavioural modification (a carrot & stick approach: rewards for masculine behaviour, punishment for feminine behaviour), Rekers & Lovaas claimed that Kraig was cured. Burke, however, suggests that his preferences were driven 'underground', while he verbalised and acted out a preference for male-typical toys in order to avoid punishment, which included spanking by his father under the direction of the instructors. Rekers followed up Kraig's case, and dismissed concerns about his developing delinquency, and ignored his growing apart from his father (emphasising the opposite). Ten years later, while Rekers still presented Kraig as the 'poster-child' for behavioural treatment of femininity in boys, Green's follow-up suggested a different scenario; terrified of his sexuality, of having long hair, appearing at all feminine, and of any advance by a man (which could elicit feelings of physical violence). At eighteen, when he began to question his sexuality, he tried to kill himself. His interviews indicated an overriding sense of shame about everything to do with UCLA, his gendered play, and his sexuality. Despite this, Green still concluded that none of the children in the experiemnet were harmed by their participation. Rekers still used Kraig to illustrate the treatment model in his 1995 handbook for pediatricians; however, he modifies the history to fit concerns about transsexualism, rather than homosexuality.

p.47:

Lovaas has since distanced himself from Rekers' work with feminine boys, saying he was on the committee that evaluated Rekers' work, who was a junior assistant professor (despite Lovaas being lsited as the Principle Investigator). Lovaas insists that the spankings were at the parents' instigation, not the instructors. The reports at NIMH, and Rekers' studies, explain that the children's genitals were examined (alongside other tests) to rule out anatomical differences in feminine boys; Lovaas denies that this happened, or knowledge of who would have carried out these examinations.Mish (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Such a delightful man. Brings back memories. Yuk. So, yeah, I think this is much better than just the MiamiNews source. Can you put it in? ThanksPanthera germanicus (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Miami New Times is a valid source. I don't know if I'm using the correct publishing terminology, but it's a subsidary (or part of the same syndicate) as The Village Voice, under the agis of the same general editor. Teresa Carpenter won a Pulitzer Prize writing for The Village Voice. (Vol. XXX No. 45) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codenamemary (talk • contribs) 18:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to work on adding these book sources if someone could pdf me the relevant book pages (which I will delete after using them). Email me via my talk page if that would be helpful. The "scholarly work" section of the article is where the expansion should take place.--Milowent (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I only have hard copy (books). The above is a precis of text. I have inserted relevant page numbers. Kraig was not the only boy mentioned, but his case is the best documented (and in Rekers' estimation the most severe). There is also discussion of Brenda, a girl who featured in the experiments. The more I read into this, considering the notability of the investigators involved, I'm beginning to wonder whether this needs to be an article in its own right? Mish (talk) 18:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

We have Gender identity disorder in children, which might merit expansion too.--Milowent (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Green's BLP has barely a mention of the sissy-boy project. Mish (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting what the GIDC article says about Zucker - this could be built up as history, covering Green, Rekers, Lovaas & ultimately Zucker - although I suspect that its insertion will be resisted by at least one editor. Need access to Green's & Rekers' respective writings on this, as well as some of Zucker's papers that discuss Rekers' & Green's work. Most of what I have in this area relates to adult GID & adult conversion therapy. Mish (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Rekers is listed at imdb

He appeared on a 2004 episode of "American Justice" called The Susan Smith Story: A Mother's Confession because he authored the 1997 book Susan Smith: Victim or Murderer. Amazon.com mentions he's "the clinical psychologist who served as the designated spokesperson for the University of South Carolina School of Medicine, where Smith had her mental evaluation." So this is why he ended up being interviewed for the A&E show. I wonder if the main article should have a link to this, at some point. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2660878/board/threads/ Codenamemary (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

New York Times mention

Drama critic Frank Rich has a piece up, "A Heaven-Sent Rent Boy": http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/opinion/16rich.html?hp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codenamemary (talk • contribs) 21:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I note that another editor has added some text from that excellent commentary.

Mish, I agree that Dr. Rekers has had an influence on the work of many psychologists working in the field of gender studies. My sole concern is that the article be NPOV. After being blocked and threatened with indefinite ban the moment I first raised objections (of course there no possible connection between the two, oh no) I am very much working under the assumption that some editors - not you - will indeed try to cast things in a very NOPV light. Any questions I put, any doubts I may have arise from that basis.Panthera germanicus (talk) 11:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I am showing my age! To clarify, Frank Rich made his name as the drama critic for the New York Times, but switched to writing about politics years ago.Codenamemary (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

American College of Pediatricians

Added comment by Director of NIH on this group. For a civil servant in his position, this is about as nasty a statement as one can imagine. I am so not good at edits (which is why I used to ask for help on discussion pages), so if anybody can clean up the footnote I'd be much obliged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panthera germanicus (talk • contribs) 12:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you AV3000! On a good day, I can just barely manage to turn on the computer without it blowing up or the printer spewing pages. Bad days are when I have to drag it out from where it's hiding under the sofa.Panthera germanicus (talk) 16:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

UK or US English

Don't want to step on any toes, not bloviating or being disruptive here. Definitely something better to ask first rather than just to change given the enormous fights one finds on the subject elsewhere on Wikepedia. The article begins in US English, Dr. Rekers is an American. Obviously, cited text remains in the variant of original composition. Several words in our edited text, however, appear in both variations. Should we harmonize them to one version? I don't care, personally, would, however, suppose US English to be preferable.Panthera germanicus (talk) 11:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't write in US English, mainly because I was educated in British English, which to me is the correct English, obviously. I appreciate that Misplaced Pages is US English in origin, and in articles where Indian English is the norm I'd never seek to impose my English on those editors, although I can only write in British English. This article is about the US, so it wouldn't be unreasonable to suggest it should be in US English. In US vs British English, the main difference is spelling. We spell paedophile where they spell pedophile, for example. So, I will continue to write in my native language, but if anybody wants to change the spelling to reflect US English, I won't get precious about it. Mish (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Mish, I'd suggest, once things are more or less settled, that we run the text through a spelling checker and everything which is not a direct citation then be spelled in one variation. I just noticed it while checking my own modest edits to clean them up as best I could.

Once this article is more or less in shape, I think I will probably take a course in working on the encyclopedia before I do anything else. I can't remember a nastier working environment anywhere in my life. It looks as though Florida might end up in a law suit because of Dr. Reker's charges for testifying. Should that come to be, I don't see how to incorporate it into the current structure - it is already too chaotic for what's there now.Panthera germanicus (talk) 17:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we can all take a correspondence course together?? I know it's tough, insulting and time-consuming collaborating with some editors (which is why I don't do more), but you've made great contributions. Maybe you can just stick with this one article and not branch out...and that would be managable. I like your idea of adding more and helping to keep an eye on things here.Codenamemary (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

very important details

you have one of the leading and prominent anti-homosexuals in the country, a doctor who has written extensively on the subject who is caught with a "rent-a-boy" Rekers claims all he was doing was carrying his luggage, yet the rent-a-boy claims " according to one report "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" and those details keep getting deleted from the article. these are not sorid details, they are vital ones and lend balance to the allegations. That quote is well sourced and provide the reader some insight into the allegations. please stop deleting this information.

More the previous entry only stated that Rekers got a naked massage daily, well most ALL massages are naked, you wear a towel or something. THAT is why I keep adding those details, so the reader will understand this was not a typical "naked" massage. I get massages, my wife gets them, we are always naked (but covered with a towel) so it's important to distinguish what is being portrayed.

I fully agree with you that an exact description is important. What matters to me, however, is that it be adequately sourced. I have no problem with an exact description - in fact, without it we are left with an "upstanding Christian Dr." and a "rentboy" and "a massage." A-ha. A "massage". Right. Tell the truth and shame the devil doesn't work here. It's "verifiable" that counts. Oh, please do sign your entries - there are some here who have raised "bite the newbies" to a new art.Panthera germanicus (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Long stroke definition. I notice it is back in. I expect it will be removed as soon as a certain editor sees it. Again. May I humbly suggest that this time, we all talk about it? Easy for me to say, I'll be off-line the next days, but for what my thoughts are worth - I think it is valid and at least as worthy of being mentioned as all the "context" about Dr. Rekers "Christian" beliefs.Panthera germanicus (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If the article says "massage" without explanation, many readers will assume its a euphemism for gay sex. It would be a misrepresentation of what really happened.--Milowent (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, that is why - properly sourced - I think a description should be in there. I've given massages to straight male friends and I've had massages from straight male friends and I can't ever recall us doing anything which we would have not wanted our parents or church to see...but that is subjective. I'm gay, so obviously my opinion is not going to be that of a heterosexual man. If, however, we know that the massage included stroking the guy's external male genitalia, well, then, that is beyond discussion. Actually, put that way it sounds really nasty. Pity Geo didn't phrase it that way. Have to go with what's verifiable, not the "truth", though.Panthera germanicus (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This misrepresents what the text says. It does not say the massage was naked, it says (and has for some time now) "naked sexual massage". That seems sufficient to clarify it was more than just a massage, according to the masseur. My own view is that if we are going to include Reker's statement about how he witnessed about Jesus Christ on several occasions during their vacation together, and the companion states there was a specific form of massage, then NPOV suggests we give equal weight to both versions. However, if we omit the prominence given to Rekers' denial of any 'impropriety', such as his assertion that he was proselytising, then we don't need to go into detail about 'the other side of the story', just that he denies anything like that happened, while the other party says there was sexual massage. There has to be parity, as both sources are equally reliable as far as we are aware. Mish (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I will continue to remove that passage until there is consensus for its inclusion. Mish, I'm glad you pointed out the details of the current version: in fact, the source provided does not say that the massage was sexual (only that it was nude), so I will take that out as well. Let's be clear on the fact that there is only one source for this claim as well -- the "Raw Story" source simply quotes at length the article from the Miami New Times, and the CNN video doesn't say anything about the details of where he was touched or even that the massage was naked. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I want it included. Properly sourced, properly titled, but included. I have no idea what the next step is to attain "consensus", but suggest it be taken. I will be traveling the next days and probably off-line, so am entering my thoughts on the matter here. This is not bloviating or personal feelings, this is directly relevant to establishing consensus: I totally agree with Mish' assessment above that, if we are going to include all the "Christian" motivations for Dr. Reker, it is only NPOV to include the specifics on his "massage". So, strong keep. In fact, until we reach consensus, I think it should go back in. Only not putting it back in to avoid a war.Panthera germanicus (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I am also going to request a neutrality disputed label on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panthera germanicus (talk • contribs) 21:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Filed a "request for editor assistance" appears to be the "assume good faith" approach. We shall see. If I get blocked for it on procedural grounds, we will know just what good faith is worth on this article. Again, as I probably won't be on-line the next few days, I am very strongly in favor of including the details of the massage. Frankly, we can split hairs about what is and what is not sexual to a conservative Christian when he's been caught with his pants down...but in my book, when one guy strokes another guys genitalia to erection, it's sexual and belongs in the article.Panthera germanicus (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I have put a quote from the PinkPaper (UK) that explains what Jo-Vanni has said to various media outlets in accurate but not explicit terms. I have inserted this. If this gets removed, then neutrality insists that I have to remove Rekers' own assertions about what happened. Otherwise we introduce bias by preferencing his version of events. Mish (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Mish. It's not quite as descriptive as the original entry (which I would have preferred, had the source been more satisfactory. But it certainly leaves no doubt in anyone's mind that, yes, it was sex. And that is what counts. If this is the "consensus" solution - and if it be left alone - then, if the original editor is OK with it, I am in agreement. Should he desire a more detailed listing (with appropriate sourcing), then I feel we should comply. There has to be some point in this process where editing consists of more than undoing, threatening to constantly undo and having people blocked with whom one is displeased.Panthera germanicus (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please cut and paste the proposed substitution here? I can't figure out how to compare and contrast all the different versions. I do agree that whatever is used, it should be quite detailed, as Dr. Rekers is quoted in detail as to what his version of the events of the trip were.Codenamemary (talk) 22:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Codenamemary, I will try:

"'Jo-vanni in news reports, has told various media outlets that he gave Rekers daily massages in the nude during the trip, which included genital touching." He also talked about how he believed that Rekers was, in fact, homosexual:

I hope that is right. If not, hopefully somebody will correct it.Panthera germanicus (talk) 23:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Originally it said massage, then somebody wanted to insert what Jo-Vanni said the massage consisted of, this was edit-warred over a bit, so I replaced 'nude massage' with text about naked massage that included genital touching. That was also removed, so I replaced simply with 'naked sexual massage'. That went unchallenged for several days, then somebody tried to put back what Jo-Vanni said about the massage again. The edit war resumed, with Nomoskedasticity reverting that to 'naked sexual massage' whenever it was inserted. Then there was a challenge to Nomoskedasticity's removal of details about Jo-Vanni's statement, and I pointed out that the text had not said 'naked massage', but had said 'naked sexual massage' for some time. Then Nomoskedasticity deleted that, and replaced it with 'nude massage' on the basis that is what the source said. Naked vs. nude is trivial - we do not have to use the precise wording, just words that mean the same. My only reason for putting 'sexual massage' was because Jo-Vanni's statement was being censored out, and when I tried to be more accurate, that was removed as well. So, I went back to sources, and located the UK's PinkPaper which does not go into explicit details, but does talk about naked massage that included genital massage (remarkably similar to an earlier edit of mine, but which was removed). So, I inserted "'Jo-vanni' in news reports, has told various media outlets that he gave Rekers daily massages in the nude during the trip, which included genital touching." as a quote, so that the wording would not be quibbled over, and which seems most accurately to describe what he said without explicit details.

My concern is that if we give one party's comments about what happened priority over another's, then that inserts bias, and potentially prejudices our treatment of the matter. So, if we are not going to allow this, some equivalent comment by Rekers needs to go as well - such as his claim to have spent time witnessing the Gospel. I personally think the challenge to NewTimes as a source is bogus anyway, but have sought to find other reliable sources where possible. I think we need to challenge this maneuver. It started with a challenge to the original source, then reliable sources that referred to the original source were challenged because they were repeating the original sources, until the story became so well documented that could not be sustained. These seem like strategies to keep controversial material out, and I appreciate that it is important to ensure we deal with controversial material as cautiously and conservatively as possible. However, when what has been written has been repeated and discussed around the world in mainstream newspapers, TV news and chat shows, the gay press, it seems a bit daft trying to censor it here really. So, I would suggest to whoever thinks that the original source should still be excluded, that they provide a rationale take it to appropriate board for confirmation - because I can find no indication on the noticeboard that the New Times Media is not a reliable source. In the case of Village Voice, which merged with New Times media, the view seems to be that they are reliable, but because their reports can be controversial, it is wise to ensure that there are other sources that state something similar to their reports. I think we have bent over backwards to accommodate that concern, and now we should just ignore these strategic challenges, and state quite bluntly that if somebody wants to keep challenging this, they need to take New Times Media to the reliable sources noticeboard. If they do so, that should not be done in the way that this page was taken to another board earlier - they need to notify people here about it, providing a link, so they can participate in the discussion there. Discussion about New Times' validity as a source should not be discussed here any further, it should be discussed there. Notification should also be made on pojects or pages that a particularly relevant (such as New Times Media). Resolving this matter would go some way to avoiding edit warring on this matter. If they do not do this, or point to some former advice about New Times Media, then I feel there is no case for continuing to exclude such material. Mish (talk) 11:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

As a side-note, the advice on blogs mainly applies to personal and group blogs, news blogs are acceptable. The criterion is to do with whether the blog is part of an organisation (such as a newspaper), or is self-publication. Self-published blogs are not acceptable.Mish (talk) 11:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

As I indicated, I think the current version is fine. I'm not disputing the reliability of the Miami New Times; I have no doubt that a thread on RSN would produce support for it. A more appropriate venue would be BLPN, in my view. I would also like to suggest that discussions here try to maintain some perspective in relation to my own contributions: I pushed very hard against our friend Off2riorob, and in part via my own contributions this article now looks quite different from what he would prefer. I do not consider myself an enemy of the other editors on this page and I don't think I should be perceived as such; among the editors currently participating here, there is not really a great deal of divergence of positions. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this. Firstly, this article has already been raised at BLPN. WP:RS is featured within WP:BLP, and while BLP policy may require more stringent application of RS guidelines, it does not trump RS. The correct place to discuss this is WP:RS/N, and if the material garnered from a source that is considered reliable and is accurate and verfiable, then there is no reason why it needs to be excluded - provided it is not given undue weight against other sources that state something different. I think what is there now (or was last time I looked) is sufficient for the time being. Mish (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, we are making a major concession by not including the full details about the massage...the anal and butt-cheek carressing bits. (These body parts are not "genitals".) I think the only rationale for leaving them out is because we don't want to go back and forth over it for the next 5 years. So, if that's the most expedient way to go, that's okay, I GUESS. Codenamemary (talk) 18:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Quick Q about discussion

Hi, a while back, I made a quick comment on the discussion page that this sentence (or a variant of it) may not have been as neutral as intended:

"According to the New Times, he made it clear that he had met Rekers through Rentboy.com and denied that he had been hired to carry luggage. Dan Savage, of the column, Savage Love has suggested that "whatever lifts your luggage" replace the phrase "whatever floats your boat", in reference to George Rekers's statement that he used a male prostitute to lift his luggage."

My point was just that, saying the rent boy 'made it clear that he had met Rekers though Rentboy.com' sounds like the Rentboy settled the issue; that he perhaps offered some sort of evidence which put the issue to bed. I would just suggest that there is a difference between, say, "Nixon made it clear that he did nothing illegal," and "Nixon made it clear he thought he had done nothing illegal."

Now I'm not here claiming that this is correct, but my original post seems to have been removed from the discussion page. Is this because it was so obviously erroneous? If so, could someone please explain to me how? I'd be happy just to know what other posters thought was so wrong about it that a response could not be left on the discussion page. I'd just not like to make similar mistakes in future.

Thank you all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.146.36 (talk) 10:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Older discussions get archived: you can find your post here. It sounds like I need to slow down the archiving... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that because of the amount of discussion generated, the archiving interval is fine. If there is an active discussion, and the discussion appears to peter out, most assume it has been resolved. If somebody decides to resume the discussion some time later, after there have been further edits, then it is a new discussion, and people are free to refer back to the archive discussion if they wish to avoid repeating themselves.

I agree that if we are giving place to Jo-Vanni's version of events, and Rekers asserts a different version, then we need to ensure there is parity, as BLP policy applies to both people here. I have placed a source that points to Rekers' denial, as well as a quote from The Times of London that states that Rekers hired him from Rentboy.com. As yet, The Times has not retracted this, and they are one of the most reliable sources in the encyclopedia. They state that is where he got the assistant, not that this is a claim. You will also note that what Rekers actually says is not a denial that he used Rentboy.com - it is carefully worded - he denies hiring a prostitute through Rentboy.com, but he says nothing about whether he hired Jo-Vanni, or a travel assistant through Rentboy.com, just that he was unaware until later that Jo-Vanni was a prostitute. However plausible (or not) one might think this is, he is not denying he used Rentboy.com at all, just that he denies hiring somebody as a prostitute through Rentboy.com. I am not clear anybody has alleged he hired him as a prostitute either - just that he hired him, and he is available through Rentboy.com - and that Jo-Vanni states that he was hired by him through Rentboy.com. Given all this, I don't see what the problem is with including it. Mish (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. The editor who was resisting this is no longer active on this article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Your analogy doesn't really hold up. Nixon may have believed that his sanctioning breaking and entering was not illegal, when history shows he was wrong in that - that even a President sanctioning illegal activity was acting illegally; however, he would have known whether he sanctioned breaking and entering or not, even if he thought it was not illegal for him to do so. In this situation, Jo-Vanni would not have thought he had been hired through Rentboy.com, he would have known this - what he thought he was being hired for may be open to doubt, but if he says he was hired through Rentboy.com, then either he is correct, or he is lying, or he was deceived into believing that Rekers was hiring him through Rentboy.com, when actually, Rekers just happened to have gained access to his details some other way. The last option takes us into a realm of speculation and conspiracy way too esoteric for us to even consider - so, either he is lying or saying what happened. Until these two sort out their relationship (either between each other, or in court), we have no way of knowing whether it is Jo-Vanni or Rekers who has a poor grasp of the facts in their situation; in either case, what Jo-Vanni says is that he was hired through Rentboy.com, not that he thought he was hired this way. Whether he is correct or not, that is what we reflect, not some synthesis that suggests his statement indicates some uncertainty on his part. Mish (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for all that; I didn't realise discussion pages got archived under these circumstances -- thanks for clearing that up.

As for the actual detail of my comment, I'm not that bothered, it was a minor point, and I certainly won't be pushing it, but I will just clarify it because I think it has been taken wrongly: I was merely saying that the use of the phrase 'made it clear' made it sound like the rent-boy's word put paid to the issue (irrespective of whether it clashes with sourced quotes from Rekers).

My comment was not questioning the reliability of the Times: I am happy for the wikiarticle to say that the rent-boy was hired through rentboy.com, if the Times reported this. I am happy for the wikiarticle to say that the rentboy says he was hired from rentboy.com, if the Times reported he said that. My issue is with concluding too much from what the rentboy said -- it's kind of like (in a more extreme sense) saying "According the the New York Times, the rent-boy proved he had been hired through rent-boy.com" (where the rent-boy merely claimed it).

As for my example not holding up, I disagree, but we can simply use another example instead: I think there is a difference between saying "Nixon made it clear that he did not sanction breaking and entering" and "Nixon claimed he did not sanction breaking and entering" (where, in the wikiarticle, the first is being used, but is justified solely by the second). But I want you to know that I am not asking for a revision, it is a minor point to say the least -- it was just something that occurred to me while I was reading it and I thought, "Oh, that's a bit unfair." Not that he doesn't deserve the unfairness -- but not that he does, either.203.45.146.36 (talk) 06:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, I've just seen the original response to my original post, and that seems fair. If the times reported that the rent-boy's word made x clear, or proved x, or whatever, then it's fair to report that the Times says the rent-boy's word made x clear, or proved x, or whatever. I still think unjusified conclusions are being drawn, but it is the Times doing that, not wikipedia. I can only note that, for some reason, the source material seems to in some way glide over the use of the term 'made it clear' in a way that the wikiarticle doesn't seem to do -- but that is not something I can put my finger on, and if no-one else can either then I think it's fine that the article be left as is. Sorry for bothering everyone.203.45.146.36 (talk) 06:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I have just checked the source, and Jo-Vanni says nothing about rentboy.com in that report of the interview. I have removed this, and it should only be re-inserted if it has a source with him stating this. I agree that 'he made clear' is problematic (I see what you mean now); that assumes he is correct. It should simply report what was stated in the article (which made clear these were allegations, although there was no mention about Rentboy.com). The wording about hiring and rentboy.com needs to be chained as closely to the sources as possible. Mish (talk) 08:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, hey, thanks for that; yeah that's exactly all I meant, that the wording was coming across a little different than I think was intended. Sorry for originally making it sound like a rehash of the Off2riorob debate. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 01:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I see that the article is pretty much OK. It certainly does not describe the despicable behavior of this man adequately - but the christianists also did not succeed in whitewashing it as they so desired.

Two things I take from this. First, it is enormously difficult to work on an article when one has been hurt by those whom one is chronicling. Second, the concept of "don't bite the newbies" has failed here utterly. Both Nomoskedasticity and Sandstein (who should have recused themselves given our disagreements on deletionism at the German wikipedia) used all the resources available to them to attack me. But, heh - it's a learning experience. For the future, I'll talk much less, know who revels in using administrative tools against those with whom they disagree and react with the appropriate acceleration and just plain edit away.Panthera germanicus (talk) 20:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

1. "George Alan Rekers Denies He's Gay".
2. "NARTH Had Hand in Rekers Damage Control, Escort Says".
3. ^ Peter Lloyd (2010-05-13). "Homophobe George Rekers resigns over rent boy scandal". PinkPaper.

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• C-Class biography (science and academia) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (science and academia) articles
• Science and academia work group articles
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs of scientists and academics
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs of people
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class Christianity articles
• Low-importance Christianity articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• C-Class psychology articles
• Mid-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles
• C-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles